Whose Revolution is it After All?

-UPDATED- Questions About The Chaos At The Capitol That Desperately Need To Be Answered

#1 How Did Protesters Get Near The Capitol In The First Place?

Well, it turns out that police actually opened up the barricades that were surrounding the U.S. Capitol and purposely allowed protesters to storm the building.  You can see this on video right here

 

And once the barricades were open, at least one police officer was actually waving protesters onward

 

#2 Who Was Breaking The Doors And Windows At The Capitol?

The general consensus in the media is that it was Trump supporters that did this, but in this video you can see Trump supporters actually trying to pull Antifa activists away as they were smashing the glass…

 

And here is another video where you can hear Trump supporters booing as an Antifa activist tries to break a window…

 

#3 Once Protesters Got Inside The Building, Why Did A Guard Lead Them Up Several Flights Of Stairs?

To me, this video footage is absolutely jaw dropping

 

Either the U.S. Congress has the worst security personnel that any of us have ever seen, or this was allowed to happen on purpose.

#4 Who Arranged For Antifa Buses To Be Brought Into The Heart Of D.C. With An Escort?

There have been multiple reports that Antifa activists were brought into D.C. by bus.  In fact, one patriot actually recorded video of four Antifa buses that were brought right into the heart of Washington D.C. with an escort…

 

#5 Were Trump Supporters Responsible For Some Of The Vandalism Inside The Capitol?

Yes, sadly there were some Trump supporters that committed crimes inside the U.S. Capitol.

For example, the man that stole a lectern from the Capitol has been identified as a Trump supporter from Florida named Adam Johnson…

And there were many others that got caught up in the violence as well.

#6 Were Radical Leftists Identified Among The Protesters Inside The U.S. Capitol?

Yes.

Utah resident John Sullivan, the founder of a violent far-left organization known as “Insurgence USA”, was photographed inside the Capitol

 

He was later interviewed by CNN, but they never asked him what he was doing there…

 

Over the coming weeks, we will learn much more as law enforcement authorities conduct their investigations.

But it is interesting to note that Congressman Mo Brooks is admitting that he was warned of a potential Antifa attack on the Capitol in advance.  The following is what he posted on Twitter earlier today

Please, don’t be like #FakeNewsMedia, don’t rush to judgment on assault on Capitol. Wait for investigation. All may not be (and likely is not) what appears. Evidence growing that fascist ANTIFA orchestrated Capitol attack with clever mob control tactics.

1. A Congressman warned me on MONDAY of a growing ANTIFA threat & advised that I sleep in my office rather than leaving Capitol complex & sleeping in my condo. I heeded that advice & have slept on office floor for 4 straight nights.

2. Congressman told me he was warned on TUESDAY by Capitol Police officer that intelligence suggested fascist ANTIFA was going to try to infiltrate the Trump rally by dressing like Trump supporters.

3. Capitol Police advised TUESDAY that it best not to leave Capitol complex.

4. Evidence, much public, surfacing that many Capitol assaulters were fascist ANTIFAs, not Trump supporters.

All of this just seems very odd to me.

Just as a debate about the evidence of election irregularities was about to begin in the halls of Congress, riots conveniently broke out directly in front of the U.S. Capitol.

Members of Congress were quickly evacuated, and the millions of Americans that were watching never got to see an honest debate about the 2020 election.

When proceedings finally resumed, the entire atmosphere had completely changed, and all of a sudden hardly anyone was interested in debating whether the election results were legitimate or not.

So who actually benefitted from the riots?

I think that question is the key to this whole thing.

Also, it is important to note that these riots have dealt a severe blow to any political future that President Trump hoped to have.

So with one stone, activists have neutered the debate over the legitimacy of the election and they have devastated the Trump movement as well.

It appears that someone really was playing “3D chess”, and it wasn’t Trump and his supporters.

And this is just the beginning.  As I keep warning, the radical left will never be satisfied until they accomplish all of their goals.

Electing Joe Biden was just a way to get rid of Trump.  The radical left actually doesn’t like Biden either, and they will fight him bitterly if Biden does not go along with their full agenda.

In the end, what they want is a full-blown “revolution” in this country.  And as we witnessed on Wednesday, they will go to extreme lengths in order to get what they want.

from:    http://endoftheamericandream.com/questions-about-the-chaos-at-the-capitol-that-desperately-need-to-be-answered/

See the USA On The Rioting Tour

Black Lives Matter Protester Arrested In Washington Was Also At Riots In Portland And Kenosha

Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

Black Lives Matter protester arrested during riots in Washington over the weekend had also attended riots in Kenosha and Portland, police said Monday, as the Justice Department announced it would be probing whether organizations are paying individuals to move across the country.

Seattle-based Jeremy Vajko, 27, was arrested on Saturday night amid clashes between law enforcement officers and rioters. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, he drove recklessly near the Hay-Adams Hotel and drove “into a crowd of over 100 individuals.”

Vajko, who reportedly worked for Microsoft until May, was released from jail on Sunday and his charges have since been dropped. He has insisted that his “Snack Van” is used to hand out food and water and to help transport medics.

“The van is just full of free water, food, and medical supplies for the homeless and protesters,” Vajko tweeted Thursday. “I even gave water to the people that destroyed my van.”

Washington Police Chief Peter Newsham said during a press briefing on Monday with Mayor Muriel Bowser that Vajko’s van had been sighted previously in during clashes in both Portland, the nexus of the riots, and Kenosha.

“There was a van that was driving recklessly, potentially could have hit pedestrians and officers in the area,” Newsham said of Saturday’s incident in the nation’s capital, without mentioning Vajko’s name.

“We have intelligence to suggest that van was also at some of the violence we saw in Portland, Oregon, and some of the violent activity we saw in Kenosha,” he said.

The police chief noted that his officers are being assisted by the federal government to investigate whether there is “an organized, funded attempt to create violence in our city.”

“This isn’t just Washington, D.C. We’ve seen violence in other cities and to the extent that that is coordinated, us in law enforcement, we have a responsibility to find out if it is and then answer that question ‘Who?’—and hold them accountable,” Newsham said.

He said that 70 percent of individuals arrested in recent days were from outside Washington, D.C. Bowser noted that weapons were brought into the capital by “outside agitators” to “destroy property in the District.”

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary (DHS) Chad Wolf said late Monday that the heads of organizations believed to be behind the recent riots in the United States are being probed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

DOJ officials are “also targeting and investigating the head of these organizations, the individuals that are paying for these individuals to move across the country,” Wolf added, without specifying which groups.

Wolf said many of those arrested in Kenosha, Wisconsin, were from outside the city.

“So we know they’re moving around, we’ve seen them in D.C., in Sacramento, and elsewhere. We know they’re organized. We have seen similar tactics being used from Portland and other cities across the country as well,” he said.

A White House spokeswoman told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement:

“The president is highlighting questions that need answers such as who may be funding travel and lodging for organized rioters. For example, violent rioters in Kenosha who were arrested hailed from 44 different cities. An investigation is underway to determine who is funding these organized riots happening across the country.”

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/black-lives-matter-protester-arrested-washington-was-also-riots-portland-and-kenosha?utm_campaign=&utm_content=ZeroHedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

Bundy Ranch, BLM, Prescriptive Rights

Prescriptive Rights: a Constitutional Perspective on the Bundy Ranch Crisis

 

Does Cliven Bundy Have “Prescriptive Rights”? A Deeper Look at the Bundy Ranch Crisis18th April 2014

By Ben Swann & Michael Lotfi

Guest Writers for Wake Up World

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions mainstream media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off?

The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County, Montana and he has worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. On Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM: “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?”

The response from top officials at the BLM: “We are worried that he might and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights?

 Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives someone the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land; in this case a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle, until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past, that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle. “The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle. “I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it’, says Devlin. Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government, therefore it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle. “I asked why they didn’t put a lien against the cattle… They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”.

Who Actually “Owns” America’s Land?

Here we see a modern representation of Americans awakening to the insidious growth of our Federal Creature. Over the weekend, the fierce stand-off between Bundy Ranch militiamen and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) came to a dramatic end – for now – with the protesters chasing government representatives off the disputed land.

But this situation raises the important question…. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor”. This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads:

All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.  [Emphasis added]

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land”. Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2014/04/18/prescriptive-rights-a-constitutional-perspective-on-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/

Lessons from the Bundy Ranch

Bundy Ranch and the new rules of engagement

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of round one of the Bundy Ranch armed siege by the U.S. government, I have decided to offer the federal government an intelligent analysis of the new rules of engagement. People like Daniel P. Love, Special Agent in Charge of BLM Region 3, desperately need to review and learn these rules. Other federal agents also need to understand the tectonic shift of power that has just taken place and how it will impact their operations from here forward.

Why am I doing this? Because the BLM, through its astounding incompetence and arrogance, very nearly initiated a massacre at Bundy Ranch which would have been disastrous for the BLM agents actively engaged there. The incident very nearly came to a shooting war, and it is the outdated, ill-informed government playbook that inflamed the situation and brought it to a flashpoint of violence. At every step, BLM escalated the situation beyond reason: who brings snipers to a tortoise dispute? Who unleashes attack dogs on unarmed pregnant women and cancer survivors? The BLM, that’s who!

I know there remain many good agents in many different departments of the federal government. But there are also many incompetent agents who are still living in the 1990’s and think they can run an armed ranch siege in 2014 the same way the ATF ran the Waco, Texas siege in 1993. But the rules have changed. As proof of that, consider the now-historical fact that BLM agents publicly surrendered and retreated from hundreds of armed citizens near Bunkerville, Nevada. How did this happen, exactly? To understand that, you must understand the new rules of engagement between the feds, the media and the citizens.

So if you have any friends who are feds in any department — BLM, ATF, DEA, FBI, etc. — make sure they get a copy of this article… and we all might spare ourselves some bloodshed in the near future.

Personal context: As far as my own background, I am a long-time supporter of local law enforcement, a fan of certain individuals within the FBI who are still part of “the good guys” pulling for America, and an outspoken critic of overzealous abuse of power in any agency, including the ATF, DEA and of course the BLM. My personal beliefs on current events can best be summarized by the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano in this video interview.

Old rules of engagement? Coercion, intimidation and overwhelming show of force

The reason BLM just got hoodwinked at Bundy Ranch was because they were playing by the old rules of engagement which are based on “might makes right.” BLM foolishly thought that if they closed down the air space, threatened citizens with arrest, brought snipers to the scene and ordered the mainstream media to run a total blackout on the story, they would control the situation and easily be able to assert their will (which was to seize control of the land).

They were wrong. As we all now know, BLM Special Agent Daniel P. Love vastly over-estimated the strength of his position and wildly under-estimated the strength of his opposition. How did he make that mistake? He thought this was a war of kinetic action, but it was actually a war of information flow (more discussion below).

Federal agents are intentionally misinformed during their training

Much like Dan Love, most federal agents are still running on playbooks which are wildly outdated. Change is always slow to make its way into government training manuals, operational tactics and rules of engagement. Citizens, patriots and indy media journalists, on the other hand, are incredibly adaptable, technologically savvy and enjoy an ever-growing base of support which has only expanded due to the extreme abuses of liberty and freedom that have taken place under the Obama administration. The harder the feds push, the more they grow the popular resistance to coercion. Thus, the very application of the old rules of engagement automatically leads the feds to inevitable defeat in situations where federal rules conflict with core American values.

Feds are also wildly misinformed by their superiors about the truth of their opposition, and so they are handicapped from the start with disinfo that impedes their operational efficiency. Case in point: if you’re a federal agent, nearly all the people who are described to you as “anti-government” are actually pro-Constitutional government people. They are not anarchists, and they are not irrational. They are opponents of criminal corruption and die-hard advocates of honest, limited government.

Most of what you are being told about these people is propaganda, not factual truth. As a result, when you think you are about to go toe-to-toe with what you’ve been taught are “low IQ, inbred anti-government extremists,” the truth is that many of these people are actually far more cognitively accomplished than your own agents. For example, members of the Bundy family possess well-developed philosophical ideas about liberty, personal perseverance and spiritual courage. At the same time, most lower-tier federal agents have never spent any real time pondering ethics, values, courage or philosophy at all. Most federal agents, factually stated, are ignorant of the Bill of Rights and have almost no knowledge of the limitations of federal power. They are not taught, after all, to limit their reach but instead to find ways to work around such limitations and assert their power in any way possible. Such is the nature of every government agency and department. Most young men working as front-line agents in these departments have almost no knowledge of what they are truly facing.

Furthermore, federal agents are almost never instructed that their adversaries might be thoughtful, courageous, honorable people who primarily just want to be left alone. These people are also highly disciplined and principled. As the Bundy Ranch scenario clearly demonstrated, so-called “extremists” are willing and able to hold their fire and act with extraordinary self-discipline, even in the face of extreme escalations of violence perpetrated by government agents. Obviously, then, they are not extremists at all. What’s extreme is the BLM’s decision to bring snipers and government helicopters to a dispute they claim was about a desert tortoise.

Federal agents are almost never taught these truths about the everyday citizens they are facing in these scenarios. Instead, federal training programs go out of their way to vilify and smear rural white people as, for example, “low-IQ extremists” rather than the thoughtful, principled Americans they truly are. Just because somebody works on a ranch does not make them stupid. I own multiple John Deere tractors and raise chickens, yet my own cognitive function ranks in the top one-tenth of one percent of all Americans. Do not make the mistake of equating rural living with stupidity, and do not think that people only live on farms because they have no other choice. Many of us have gone to great lengths to deliberately pursue rural lifestyles because rural living is more in tune with our well-developed philosophies of happiness and purpose.

Background: The balance of power; weapons, information and decentralization

To understand the new rules of engagement, you need to understand how the American Revolution was won. And to understand that, you need to understand how the invention of interchangeable parts in firearms manufacturing allowed everyday men to attain fairly accurate rifles which could counter rifles held by centralized government personnel (in ANY government, not just the British government).

It was the proliferation of easy-to-make, easy-to-repair rifles — along with barrel rifling advancements — that allowed everyday people to rise up against government oppression and tyranny. This is how the United States of America came to be born, of course — by taking a stand against the tyranny of the King of England. That’s also why standing firm against tyranny is something that can never be taken out of the American spirit because it runs in our blood.

The ease of manufacturing and maintaining rifles shifted the balance of power from the hands of the few (government) to the hands of the many (Democracy). This is why the invention of the rifle unleashed a global wave of revolutions and revolt against centralized authority. Grassroots rifle manufacturing was, in fact, the first peer-to-peer offensive weapons manufacturing network of the modern world. If you don’t understand this trend in history, you will never understand what’s happening in America today.

Today, of course, government has far more advanced weapons than the common man. Government commands Hellfire missiles, Apache attack helicopters and even nuclear weapons. No common citizen’s group possesses such weapons, and because of this, government believes it now controls the balance of power. But that’s playing the old game from the 1700’s. Today, what matters is not so much who has the better weapons, but who has the better ability to share information. Information warfare is the paradigm of 2014 and beyond, not kinetic warfare.

The Pentagon already understands this, of course, which is why journalists are strictly controlled (“embedded”) when covering wars in the Middle East. The information war is far more important to shape and control than the kinetic war. Because it doesn’t really matter where the bombs land as long as you control which VIDEOS of the bombs get broadcast. Guiding the news coverage is far more important than guiding the ordinance, in other words. (Oops! Did ya just blow up a civilian hospital? Don’t worry, CNN will agree not to show it, aren’t they awesome?)

Government can no longer control the narrative

Centralized government can no longer control the news narrative for events taking place on U.S. soil. What’s happening today in information sharing now mirrors what took place over 200 years ago with rifle manufacturing sharing. When information can be passed from person to person, in a decentralized, peer-to-peer network with no central authority and no central point of control, facts, photos and videos easily bypass the usual firewalls government places upon mainstream media outlets. While it is exceedingly easy to control videos and photos in a foreign country, it is all but impossible to control such information when events are unfolding on U.S. soil (as they did near Bunkerville, Nevada).

The widespread ownership of video recording devices in 2014 mirrors the widespread ownership of rifles in 1775. Nearly every citizen today has a mobile phone recording device, and nearly everyone has an ability to post videos, photos, audio and tweets to the internet in near-real time. This is tactically equivalent to the ability of any citizen in 1775 to own and operate rifles capable of going head-to-head with the rifles carried by British soldiers who occupied the colonies of the Americas.

If you understand this concept of decentralized, readily-available technologies that shape the big trends of history, the you are ready to grasp the following NEW rules of engagement.

Rule #1) You no longer control the narrative

At Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge and 9/11, the U.S. government wholly controlled the narrative. The centralized media institutions in place at the time exhibited total control over all media broadcasts in the nation. There was no social media. There was no Twitter. There was no Facebook. There were no blogs. Mainstream media’s control over information was absolute, and therefore so was White House control over the mainstream media.

Today, the mass decentralization of news media is nearly complete. While centralized news sources may agree to be obedient and complicit in broadcasting propaganda (or running a media blackout on a particular story), citizens now have ready access to multiple vectors through which information can be accumulated or shared. As I have said here on Natural News, social media allows us to share the news faster than the government can cover it up.

Almost by definition, no centralized authority can exercise timely and effective control over organic, decentralized news sharing fueled by extreme curiosity, interest and sometimes outrage by the public. The very things that make Facebook addictive to many people — the “wow” factor when learning new facts — also make people want to share those facts with others. The structure of social media is viral by its very nature. This structure is the antithesis of centralized government control over narratives of unfolding news events.

Freedom of information, in other words, constantly counteracts the inherent desire of tyrants to oppress and control information. The very existence of electronic, decentralized media is anti-tyrannical by its very nature. The democratization of information automatically leads to the democratization of power, which is the exact opposite of what the U.S. government really wants. Remember: the U.S. government strongly supports freedom fighters in Kiev, but is terrified of freedom fighters in America. Ever wonder why?

Rule #2) Your mainstream media blackouts will backfire and make alternative media more popular than ever

During the Bundy Ranch affair, mainstream media was ordered by the White House to completely refrain from covering the story. This, again, is a laughable mistake from an old-school playbook.

While the White House thought that erecting a blackout across the mainstream media would cause the story to vanish from national consciousness, what actually took place was precisely the opposite: the story took off like wildfire across the ‘net. But instead of Pulizer-prize-winning mainstream journalists going on scene and reporting live from Nevada, all the journalism glory went to citizen journalists like Pete Santilli and David Knight, both working for independent online media groups that can never be controlled by government authority.

At Bundy Ranch, the mainstream media blackout backfired, causing enormous rises in popularity for indy media and alternative media. I happen to know firsthand, for example, that one of my own stories on Bundy Ranch was read by over 3 million people. And that’s small compared to a story by Kit Daniels of Infowars which went so viral that it became the single most-shared story of the year, across ALL media.

I also happen to know that indy video networks like Next News Network attracted hundreds of thousands of new subscribers. The mainstream media blackout, it turns out, was an incredible gift to alternative media which enjoyed unprecedented viewership, ad revenues, new subscribers and new fans. The mainstream media blackout was the best news of the year across alt. media. The White House, in other words, just added huge viewership numbers to the very same independent media groups it is constantly trying to discredit.

Rule #3) You can’t stop the alternative media by stopping its leaders

The alternative media is a phenomenon of spontaneous, decentralized, peer-to-peer journalism. It’s not based on specific individuals, because there is always upward pressure from others to take the place of any individuals are might be intimidated into silence. Even if top voices of alternative media were to die or disappear, they would be immediately replaced by others who are ready to assume their roles.

Online audiences easily transfer from one alternative media outlet to another. A single super-viral story, for example, can gain an alternative media person over half a million new followers. This is partly why attempts to suppress alternative media via individual character assassination are all but useless. Alternative media followers already know everything printed in the mainstream media is pure propaganda, so running a hit piece on an alt. media personality in the mainstream media accomplishes nothing.

Furthermore, there is no central authority over alternative media. Thus, there is no single point of control or influence over the network of peer-to-peer alt. media publishers and broadcasters. While the mainstream media can simply be ordered into total silence by the White House — and this is exactly what happened with the Bundy Ranch story — alt. media by definition adhere to no such obedience or demands.

Notice, too, that in this case of the Bundy Ranch, one of the top alt. media personalities, Alex Jones, was not even at the forefront of the effort: it was his reporters — David Knight and Kit Daniels — who broke the biggest stories. This is by design. Alex has always sought to encourage his reporters to rise up and cover the really big stories while establishing their own independent credibility as investigative journalists. Do not misinterpret this as a mistake; it is AJ’s intention that his reporters pursue such paths. AJ has always had the intention that Infowars would continue on even if he were killed.

Rule #4) Escalations of coercion only encourage greater resistance

The single most important factor leading to the rise of the armed citizen’s revolt at the Bundy Ranch was the Youtube video showing attack dogs unleashed by BLM agents against unarmed citizens. This video has now become legendary, having been viewed many millions of times in all its renditions and copies.

This video clearly and unambiguously shows a BLM agent giving multiple verbal and body language commands to an attack dog, directed against unarmed civilians. It was the widespread sharing of this video that led to the uprising which ultimately led to BLM surrendering to American patriots.

In realizing this, the natural tendency of government tyrants and oppressors is to say, “We’ll just ban mobile devices or confiscate them all at gunpoint!” This is the same sort of abysmal thinking that led the BLM to somehow think erecting a “First Amendment Zone” would be acceptable to Americans. Apparently, the BLM believes the American people are so incredibly stupid that won’t remember the First Amendment applied everywhere in America, not just some temporary zones defined by a delusional gang of armed tyrants. The very idea that BLM would even attempt to set up such an area of so utterly offensive and disrespectful to the spirit of America that I still shake my head in disbelief over the fact that they tried it.

Rule #5) You will only have the cooperation of the People by their choice, not by coercion

The final rule in all this is something most feds will never quite understand. In most cases, federal agents receive cooperation from citizens by choice, not by force. For example, I have voluntarily provided information to the U.S. Department of Justice on criminal scams taking place in the natural products industry. I do this by choice, not by force, because it is the right thing to do and because it serves the public interest.

When federal agents make requests upon American citizens, there is a moment in which those requests are parsed for congruency with a person’s perceived understanding of both the law and moral justice. If a federal agent’s request is in alignment with law and moral justice, it will likely be voluntarily followed. For example, I (lawfully) carry a concealed firearm every time I visit the Austin airport. If a crazy person goes nuts with a machete at the airport, and I find myself side by side with an armed federal agent, have no doubt I will voluntarily cooperate with federal law enforcement officers in a joint armed effort to halt the violence of the armed assailant and thereby protect innocent people. (And being Austin, Texas, the machete-wielder will likely find himself riddled with bullets because hundreds of honorable, armed citizens carry concealed weapons at the Austin airport every single day.)

On the other hand, if a federal agent approaches me and orders me to rob a bank for him, I will tell him no. Why? Surely the agent can claim he is “giving me a lawful order” and I therefore must obey under law, correct? Yet when that “lawful order” stands at odds with what I know to be morally right, I will choose not to obey that order, regardless of what excuse the agent invokes.

This is precisely what happened at Bundy Ranch. BLM showed up with “lawful orders” backed up by two different (federal) courts. But the People did not perceive those order as being morally justified. Therefore, they chose not to recognize those orders as being lawful. As was the case at Bundy Ranch, Americans can and do think for themselves in such scenarios, and at any moment, they may decide that YOUR actions as a federal agent are grossly unlawful, immoral or unconstitutional. If enough people arrive at the same conclusion, you will sooner or later find yourself surrounded and possibly arrested by the People at gunpoint.

This concept does not compute with many federal agents because they were not taught the real roots of power in a free society. They are taught that a law written on a piece of paper is an absolute, irrefutable power which can never be questioned by lowly “civilians.” In reality, a law is nothing more than mutual consent of the governed. That consent, it turns out, can be invoked at any time if those who apply the law do so in a way that is egregious or unreasonable. All government power comes from the People, after all, and can therefore be revoked by the People if government becomes abusive or overreaching in its exercising of that power.

Laws mean nothing, after all, if they are not based on a sense of justice which can be recognized by the Common Man (or woman). The U.S. government, for example, once had laws on the books which said that blacks were not fully recognized as people. Such laws fly in the face of spiritual truth, and had I been an independent media reporter in the 1820’s, I would have been aggressively arguing for equal rights among all people, regardless of their skin color (and I would have been aggressively attacked by the establishment for defending such a “crazy” idea, of course).

Those are the new rules of engagement. Please send this article to your favorite fed. The more of them who read this and understand it, the greater chance we all have for lasting peace and avoidance of bloodshed caused by an arrogant, out-of-control federal government that has lost its way.