May 6th

CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive – The Endgame Coming Soon to Your School?


The Endgame Coming Soon to Your School
Chuck Frank

Microsoft, is one of the leading video game makers and the creator of the Xbox. Presently, Bill Gates’ goal is to bring into the public school classroom “educational” versions of new video games that make them “perfect” companions for standardized testing, but one must ask the question, what truly is the ideal companion for testing? Is it a screen that you can be looking at for hours on end or an inspired and colorful teacher who captures the attention of the student in ways that go far beyond a video game? If Bill Gates and the rest of the entrepreneurs out there can make a buck off of a video game in a classroom they will absolutely do it even if it does not lead to higher intelligence and proven technology for a future career.

Though video games can be tolerable because they come with colorful visuals and seem to respond directly to inputs, they are not personalized teachers. Video games are provocative, but beautiful and transfixing, yet they are also isolating and can become boring. And even if a student does well in testing through this medium, it does not necessarily mean that the student is becoming smarter and can accomplish tasks more efficiently in real life.

Also, it has been noted again and again that increasing student scores rarely correlates to intelligence. In 2012 researchers from Western University published results from a survey of 100,000 people arguing that standardized intelligence tests were poor measures of cognitive ability.” Then, add this to the fact that test scores nationwide are in decline while
some schools in America are already gearing up to bring in educational games into the classroom. Will it benefit or will educational game theory add to an even further learning decline among other numerous problems that are already facing educators and students?

Let’s compare a flight simulator to flying an airplane. The software needed to realistically simulate flying a Boeing 777 is readily available. Microsoft Flight Simulator, a self-described “ideal complement to formal flight training and real-world flying,” lets people adjust complicated controls to fly a jetliner through different weather and landing conditions. Yet, jumping straight from software to successfully landing an airplane, would be extremely difficult because mastering the feel of a jetliner takes a lot of hands-on training, said NBC News aviation expert Bob Hager in a conversation with NBC News’ Lester Holt.

Now, put that into the context of bringing similar game learning concepts into a classroom that is already experiencing major problems. It could become a really hard landing.

In my opinion, what is missing most in the classroom are teachers who are sensitive, encouraging, inspirational, and who can impart the desire and the need to learn basic skills that will be extremely valuable later on in life. Still, the proper curriculum is also a huge part of the equation. This is something that still needs to be fine tuned. Not everybody is going to be an astronaut and go to college.

Finally, when looking at all of the variables that are present in education, introducing experimental learning skills via video games into an already new and untried, nationalized (Common Core) educational system, in my opinion, has all of the elements of being a very risky proposition and a total failure.

Back At The Ranch

Veritas News Service

Back At The Ranch
by Chuck Frank

Rancher Bundy stuck to his guns while the feds tried rounding up his
cattle on 600,000 BLM acres of Gold Butte, Nevada land which has been
worked by the family ever since the late 1800s, and then, the feds
took a back step and called off the Helicopter roundup. Some of the
eco-state-congressmen were worried about not getting reelected so
Obama dialed 911. Liberty, freedom, and land rights just had a
reprieve while victory crossed the Nevada desert, and for now, it’s
no longer Midnight at the Oasis.

Here’s the rest of the story. Many factors enter into the standoff
whether it be taxation without representation, water rights, solar
zones, grazing, sue happy eco-terrorists, “endangered species”, false
flags, bribes, billion dollar back room solar deals, or the feds war
on property rights and ranchers. Is it still the government’s job to
eliminate cattle in the plains just as they did the buffalo and then
relocate ranchers just as they did the native Americans? Clevin
Bundy is the last man standing who finally drew the line with the BLM
cattle rustlers who’s policies are over the top and meant to put
ranchers out of business. So where’s the beef?

Apart from the many factors present with BLM, let us not forget those
not so friendly, band of guerrilla insurgents from the Center For
Biological Diversity. They recently threatened to sue the government
if they didn’t protect the desert tortoise from Bundy’s cattle that
roamed the West. Is this why the BLM took action? These types of
lawsuits, once again, are used to force the Bureau of Land Management
to reduce grazing allotments throughout the Southwest, curtailing the
number of cattle in many areas by 80 percent or more. With the
exception of Bundy, 51 ranchers in Clark County Nevada were put out
of business. There is a giant communistic-tyrannical pattern in the
country which seeks to destroy ranching, logging, and property rights
utilizing armed federal agents, SWAT teams and snipers to accomplish
these outrageous un-American goals. The Bundy standoff was much like
Waco being revisited. But for now, all that
is left is for the feds to hire a PR agency and hope that their
terrorizing-range war image is laid to rest.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other facts come to the surface. BLM
information was reposted by the Free Republic titled, “Cattle
Trespass Impacts” which directly stated that Bundy’s trespassing
cattle would “impact” construction of “utility-scale solar power
generation facilities on public lands.” The BLM director Neil
Kornze, Harry Reid’s former senior adviser, had temporally purged
these documents from BLM’s website which stated that the agency
wanted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land which his
family had worked for over 140 years in order to make room for a 9000
acre, 5 billion dollar Chinese solar plant in Laughlin, Nevada which
has since been shelved. But then there is the sideshow. The person
who represented the Chinese solar company in 2011 was none other than
Nevada Senator, Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid. Every day this is
becoming more and more like a movie script.

But here’s the very latest, straight out of another BLM play book
entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy
Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) which reveals that Bundy’s land in
question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding
area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for
“Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land
“managed” by BLM.

But then, on March 21, 2014 signaled the first day of construction of
the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project on tribal land, where Sen.
Reid joined representatives from the Moapa Band of Paiutes,
executives from First Solar, Inc. and the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power for a groundbreaking ceremony northeast of Las Vegas.
“ Coincidentally”, the location is about 35 miles from the Bundy
homestead in Bunkerville, Nevada, who’s cattle just might be roaming
around within the parameters of the 600,000 acre BLM site which is
the point of contention. What’s the worry? Would there not be
constructed a fence that would surround any amount of solar panels or
mirrors located inside of any such facility that will generate power
in the first place?

So all of the evidence is in and the recent actions taken against
Cliven Bundy and his family was under the guise of saving a “poor
desert tortoise” while a solar plant was being pieced together in the
back room.

This is just one more day in the life of a Nevada cowhand while one
more green, political fiasco takes place where roughly 84.5% of the
land is still in the hands of the feds. It’s time to take our lands
back before we the people lose them all. Clevin Bundy thank you for
standing your ground, and just as early Americans stood in the gap
while standing up to King George III during the American Revolution,
Bundy too is a true hero sounding the alarm and taking a just cause
to the streets of America. The red coats are still coming but this
time it’s not the British. It is a rogue group of traitors from our
own government along with other internal communist forces and foreign
factions who are intent on land grabs of monumental proportions.

Asshat Tom Collins

Being in the field means not always having continuous internet access available. But, this came in from a multiple-time attendee of seminars and partner…

Darin Bushman – Piute County Commissioner

I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of “inbred bastards” and if we are coming to Clark Cointy NV to support Cliven Bundy we all “better have funeral plans”. We should “turn our asses around on mind our own f-ing business”. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.

One of the advantage of being proactively engaged versus most who just post events and happenings is you see the seminar and workshop principles applied and utilized in action.

Putting County’s Last Cattle Rancher Out of Business

Note the last paragraph

April 22, 2012 – 2:06am

The federal Bureau of Land Management has suspended plans to seize the 500 to 750 head of cattle run by Clark County rancher Cliven Bundy south of Mesquite – and 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas – for now.

But Bundy, 65, realizes this is just a truce in an ongoing battle. Both the Mesquite City Council and the Clark County Commission have expressed support for a plan to turn the entire Gold Butte region into a federal conservation area. Mark Andrews, a local photographer who’s frequented the area for 35 years, writes in that the “BLM and the Friends of Gold Butte group have removed countless miles of road and open land access from free use. Places I used to go for decades are now blockaded. These are roads that are nearly 100 years old and in steady use. And this activity has become very aggressive and pronounced in the last 24 months.”

The area south of Mesquite “is really the only public area Clark County has left that’s not designated for some conservation area, or preserve, or monument, or whatever,” Bundy says. “I’m really the only resource user who’s still got any interest in the land,” he adds, referring to the grazing rights which have come down through his family for more than 100 years, a property right he insists was not granted by and therefore cannot be suspended by the bureaucrats of Washington.

Arguments that Bundy – the last active cattle rancher in Clark County – is damaging the range by overgrazing as many as 750 head or somehow cheating the public by not paying management fees to the BLM sound somewhat curious when we look at what’s happened to the 51 other allotments on which ranchers were grazing cattle in Clark County, within living memory.

Attempting to cooperate with their federal overseers, “year-by-year their operations were crippled by rising fees and reductions in AUM (animal units monthly),” wrote investigative reporter Tim Findley in the summer 1999 edition of Range magazine. “The numbers of actively used allotments were rapidly diminishing. The cattlemen took their cases to court, and won, but the BLM simply imposed new ‘force and effect’ regulations. More ranchers gave up.”

Zero grazing fees are now being collected on those other 51 allotments, which are going to waste. Nor would the BLM be likely to lease out the Mesquite allotment to anyone else, were Bundy finally evicted.

The right amount of grazing, in the minds of Mr. Bundy’s adversaries, is no grazing. The real plan here is to turn hundreds of square miles into another federal conservation area, if not an outright wilderness. Where’s the economic benefit in that?

The Review-Journal regularly receives letters to the editor which are essentially form letters, though they bear different signatures. Typical was one received this month above the signature of Terri Rylander, a member of Friends of Gold Butte, in which she identifies herself as “a business owner living in Mesquite.” (Her business is marketing and web page design.) She further asserts: “People may visit special places like Red Rock Canyon and Gold Butte for different reasons – camping, hunting, hiking, bird watching – but all visitors spend money in our communities at restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and retail stores. Protecting Gold Butte as a national conservation area with wilderness will put this unique area on the map, drawing visitors … and ensure a steady stream of revenue to local communities like Mesquite.”

‘Not good for local economies’

A June 2011 study conducted by researchers at the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, holds otherwise.

“We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions,” wrote USU researchers Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk and Randy Simmons. “Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income.”


“Wilderness … is the most restrictive of all federal land-use designations,” the Utah researchers point out. “To preserve wild characteristics, the Wilderness designation prohibits roads, road construction, mechanized travel, and the use of mechanized equipment. Wilderness also impacts extractive industries such as mining, logging, and grazing.”

In a footnote, the researchers explain: “Grazing is expressly allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make ‘reasonable regulations’ including the reduction of grazing to improve range conditions.”

Ask Cliven Bundy about those “reasonable regulations.”

“Environmentalists claim that Wilderness contributes to a healthy tourism industry,” the Utah researchers continue. But that argument “is simply not supported by the data.”

Nor is it clear that cattle damage the range. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that ranchers, with their drip lines and water tanks – supporting quail and deer and other populations as well as cattle – and the ungulates themselves, cropping the graze close enough to the ground to allow new green shoots accessible to the tortoise while reducing the fuel buildup that fosters wildfires, are a net benefit to the country, before we even consider the benefits of local, organic beef.

A ‘state’ in name only

Citizens of any state east of the Rockies would likely riot at a proposal that the federal government take over 86 percent of their state’s land area. How did Nevada get into precisely that bind?

In his 1999 profile of Bundy for Reno-based Range magazine, Findley reported Bundy in the 1970s was willing to embrace the “multiple use” of the rangelands then being promoted. “He was patient and tried to cooperate with advice from those he considered his friends in the BLM,” Findley wrote.

“But everything we tried to do – every time we tried some compromise – they wanted more,” Bundy told Findley. “It was like talking to a greedy landlord. Everything became lockout or lockup.”

Findley introduces former Nevada District Court judge and rancher Clel Georgetta, author of the 1972 book “Golden Fleece in Nevada.” He presented the then “almost subversive” legal doctrine that claims by the federal government to more than 86 percent of the land of Nevada “amounted not only to a violation of the intention of Lincoln’s administration in promoting Nevada’s statehood in 1864, but of previous constitutional findings on the ‘equal footing’ of states admitted to the union.”

Thus was born the Sagebrush Rebellion. Legislation introduced in 1979 by then-state Sen. Dean Rhoads, directing the state attorney general to sue the federal government for control of all federal lands not specifically set aside for federal forts, post offices or Indian reservations, “is still a part of Nevada law,” Findley reported, “backed even more by a statewide referendum in 1996 in which voters overwhelmingly supported the idea of state control of public lands.”

So why hasn’t it happened?

“The Nevada attorney general has never taken the argument to federal courts,” Findley explained.

‘Public lands are a myth’

In his 1989 book “Storm Over Rangelands,” the late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage detailed how ranchers, miners, and others possess split title to the Western lands. Here in the arid West, no rancher could likely make a living off a mere 160 acres of deeded land.

So it’s not unusual for different parties to own, say, the grazing and water rights versus the mineral rights to overlapping parcels, while neither claims to “own” all that land, outright. Federal attempts to regulate those long-established rights out of existence violate basic constitutional rights, Hage successfully argued.

The BLM confiscated Hage’s cattle, up Tonopah way. He fought them through the courts for years – and won. But he died soon after. His children continue the struggle.

The federal government controls at least 86 percent of Nevada’s land area. But the federal government can show no bills of sale for these lands, approved by the legislature of the “state” in which they lie – the only method provided by the Constitution for the central government to gain title to, or wield plenary authority over, any lands within the several states.

Ironically enough, Nevada ranchers themselves have resisted reform in the past. Findley’s piece for Range magazine has President Ronald Reagan asking his interior secretary, James Watt, why the federal government couldn’t end its dominion over nearly one-third of the nation’s lands by selling them off or transferring them back to the states.

Watt had to explain to the president that wasn’t really what the ranchers wanted.

Years later, addressing a 1994 cattleman’s meeting, “Watt said Nevada sabotaged the Sagebrush Rebellion,” related Demar Dahl, former head of the state cattleman’s association. “When it came down to it, a lot of the big ranchers were afraid of losing their (federal) allotments.”

Local politicians, as well, find it “hard to turn down that $5 million or whatever,” that Uncle Sam routinely showers on local municipalities, Bundy acknowledges. “My side don’t have much cash. But the other side has put us, what is it, $60 trillion in debt.”



Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel “The Black Arrow” and “Send in the Waco Killers.” See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.

The Core Facts

The core fact is this:

The BLM has Public Domain in Nevada, as annotated in the federal records, of 44,828,279 acres held in Category 4 Jurisdiction, Proprietorial Interest Only. The State and it’s political subdivisions, the counties, retain all Legislative Jurisdiction. From the official documents offered en gratis for the broadcasts here at HOTT concerning Statehood, Limits of Federal Jurisdiction, State Sovereignty, etc.

“Proprietorial Interest Only: This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some right or title to an area in a state, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area”

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

Despite popular belief, every culture of every nation draws a line in the sand against government tyranny. The problem is, many draw this line so close to total defeat that it rarely matters. For the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, for instance, it wasn’t until the Germans had already herded millions onto railroad cars destined for death camps and cornered the rest into dilapidated central housing that the ZOB resistance was formed, only to be wiped out a month later. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but clearly too many freedom movements throughout history waited too long to respond to the trespasses of oligarchs.

The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.

I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.
The question of when to strike back is pivotal to any resistance movement. Turn to violence too soon or without proper cause in the eyes of the public, and the rebellion may lose the moral high ground and the support of the populace. Wait too long, and the totalitarian hordes may be too far entrenched, forcing the rebellion to fight from a position of strategic weakness.

There are those who might argue that America crossed the “red line” long ago and now our society is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while arguing over futile semantics. In certain respects, I can see their point. The U.S. political system is utterly lost. Anyone who still has faith in the Left/Right paradigm after two terms of George W. Bush and nearly two terms of Barack Obama is either insane, or mentally challenged. It should be obvious to Republicans and Democrats alike that our government does NOT represent the average man, and our election process is a sham. Democrats in particular should be equally furious and ashamed as the candidate they blindly worshiped to the point of cultism has now forsaken every value they thought he represented.

The legal apparatus of the U.S. is also beyond repair. Those in the mainstream who argue that grievances with government should be addressed by the courts instead of independent action obviously have not considered that the courts continuously uphold and defend legislation like that contained within the NDAA, which allows for rendition, torture, and even assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. And where are the prosecutions of Constitutional violations by the NSA? Why aren’t men like James Clapper in prison for lying directly to Congress. Why hasn’t Eric Holder been slapped in irons for his involvement with “Fast and Furious”? And what about the international financiers who back these politicians? How many of them have been prosecuted for their involvement in the toxic derivatives scandals that are destroying our economy to this day?

No, we lost the courts a long time ago. They will do nothing to save this country. But is the fight already over? I think not.

Nihilism is tempting for those people who are lazy and frightened and looking for a philosophical excuse to run away from making a stand. Claiming the fight is lost before it has truly begun is a longstanding tradition amongst millions upon millions of cowards through history. Every freedom fighter in every great revolution for liberty has heard the same arguments that we hear today – “It’s too late to change things. The enemy is too powerful and you will be crushed. The nail that sticks up will eventually be hammered down. Your movement is a minority on the fringe and no one will support you. None of you have the guts to really follow through…”

While there is certainly much to despair in the state of our nation, I find the notion that Americans will do nothing in response misplaced and ignorant. From what I have observed, it is not a question of “if” citizens snap, but when.

With objective eyes one could easily see it during the last attempts by the federal government to pass anti-gun legislation that would have led to confiscation. Pro-2nd Amendment protests erupted all over the country (though the MSM mostly ignored them) with participants far outnumbering the miniscule groups in support of gun control. The sentiment amongst millions of gun owners and millions of Liberty Movement proponents was that we were not going to allow government enforcement of new gun laws. Period. If that meant we had to start using those same guns to put an end to government, then that was exactly what we would do. The feds, of course, buckled.

Rather than take the more dangerous and unifying direct route of federal legislation, gun grabbers have shifted strategies, isolating and targeting specific states they believe will be more pliable and easier to conquer. Connecticut and parts of New York, however, have shown that even people in the most socialist of states have no intention of complying with gun registration or confiscation. In Connecticut, only 38,000 high capacity magazines were registered according to the new gun laws, while approximately 2.4 million purchased through retail remain unaccounted for. Only 50,000 “assault weapons” were registered, while at least 300,000 remain unaccounted for. A sizable number of police are also refusing to enforce registration measures (some out of constitutional loyalty, and some out of a desire for self preservation), causing the state of Connecticut to back off of its hard line rhetoric.

I can say with full confidence that the conditions within Connecticut alone would lead to an open shooting war if officials actually attempt to enforce registration and confiscation. If Safe Act-style legislation or executive orders are ever enforced at a national level, I have no doubt revolution would follow.

The latest hotbed I have witnessed is the Bureau of Land Management attack on a cattle farm in Clark County, Nevada owned by Cliven Bundy. The BLM has so far stolen over 500 cattle from Bundy on the grounds that the federal government owns the land his family has been using for grazing pasture for generations. The confiscation was implemented under the auspices of “protection for endangered species”. The species in this instance being a desert tortoise.

The methods used by the BLM resemble a militant raid, with hundreds of agents, helicopters, and even snipers at their disposal. Adding insult to injury and making the issue a national concern, the feds have also staged “First Amendment Zones” miles away from their activities to keep protestors out.

This may seem like a minor event, a tiff over cattle grazing or possibly property rights, but there is much more going on here.

Tyranny leaves lasting scars, and each tyrannical act results in an accumulation of wounds on the public psyche that do not heal. In the end, a single event can become a trigger to unleash a torrent of rage pent up in a population for years or decades. The fight for Cliven Bundy’s farm has the potential to become such a trigger.

So far, federal abuses have been primarily toward Bundy’s cattle, with confiscation ongoing and suspicions that a number of the cows are being killed. Here, protestors try to stop a truck from leaving the area which they believed might be carrying dead animals. Agents respond with dogs and tasers.

However, I believe that if this situation escalates into a Waco or Ruby Ridge brand of event, not only Liberty Movement residents of Nevada, but Liberty Movement champions across the nation will indeed finally throw down the gauntlet. What does that mean? It means they are going to start shooting. Opposing groups can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is that one way or another, it is going to happen.

Discussions within the movement are far from apathetic. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of eyes are watching every move of the BLM right now, and they should be taking this fact very seriously.

The naysayers will claim that we don’t have the will to take action. They are welcome to think whatever they like. But mark my words, Constitutionally minded Americans are not going to stand by and watch another massacre, nor a loss of gun rights, nor will we be entertaining violations of our freedoms for much longer. This society is on the edge of something. It’s kinetic, or electric. It is not yet quite visible but it is there, reverberating in the atmosphere. My suggestion to our federal bureaucracy would be to do what they did during the gun debate, and quickly back away.

Of course, we all know they won’t.

Do the elites want to stir up insurgency in order to give pretense for a larger crackdown? They very well might. But it is transparent in the way they try to mitigate dissent and offer placation that they do not want a rebellion larger than they can manage. I think it is far too late for that. I think they’ve pissed off too many people, instead of just enough people. I think that though most pretend-Americans will do nothing but watch in horror or hide in their hovels, the size of resistance to the tides of despotism is growing far beyond common realizations. And, when this resistance erupts, it will shock even those who fully expect it.



Report on the Telephone Records Program of the USA PATRIOT Act



Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Report on the bulk telephone record collections

under the USA PATRIOT Act

Happy Saturnalia!




EU Program for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data

European Union Program

for Mass Surveillance

of Personal Data


CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive: How Federal Land Control is Detrimental to the States

VNS and CAJI/IS Exclusive


A Review of Public Land Policy:

How Federal Control is Detrimental to the States


Jefferson Tyler


            Currently, the United States of America is the third largest country in the world, following Russia then Canada, with over three million square miles that contain many natural resources. While much of this land is held by the respective states or by private entities, the federal government holds a vast portion as well. In fact, the federal government owns almost a third of the total landmass of the United States of America, over six hundred million acres (O’Toole, 1999). These holdings by the federal government are disproportionally located in the western states. According to Nelson (2012), the federal government’s holdings are about fifty-eight million acres in Nevada, (83% of the state), forty-five million in California, (45%), thirty-four million in Utah (65%), thirty-three million in Idaho (63%), and more than twenty-five percent in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming. These holdings by the federal government seem to place the western states in an inferior status compared to the eastern states, relative to the amount of control a state has over the land within its borders. With such a vast area of land, the federal government has come up with ways to manage the land by enacting land policies through Congress. Many of these policies predate the creation, or even territorial possession, of the states mentioned above, as land policies date to before the creation of the Constitution. These original policies were in practice for the early part of American history. However, beginning in the late nineteenth century and culminating in 1976 under the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, the United States Congress has slowly but drastically altered the land policies to the point where they would look foreign to the Founding Fathers who laid out the original land policies. This essay will show how the land policies of the federal government have undergone transformation over time and will explore the implications of such changes.

            At the time of the American Revolution, the British claims in North America extended beyond the western borders of the thirteen colonies all the way to the Mississippi River. Subsequently, an issue arose between the states in the Continental Congress regarding the claims of some of the original states to these western lands. Seven of the original states had land claims that extended westward, and many were overlapping. On the other hand, the six smaller states had no western claims and were fearful of domination by the larger states. Consequently, Maryland objected by refusing to sign the Articles of Confederation unless these western claims were abandoned. This issue threatened the cohesion of the Union. As a result, New York became the first state to agree to cede its western claims to the central government of the Untied States in March 1780, later to be accepted by Congress October 29, 1782. To facilitate this issue “a committee of the Continental Congress prepared a resolution which implored those States still asserting claims to western wastelands to follow New York’s lead and cede their claims to the United States as well” (Howell & Redd, 2005, p. 43). In response to New York’s cessions, Maryland signed the Articles of Confederation, and shortly thereafter, the Continental Congress adopted the Resolution of October 10, 1780, in which the United States laid out the beginnings of federal land policy.

Eventually, all the other states claiming western or crown lands ceded their claims to the United States central government at various times between 1782 and 1802, in benefit of the Union as a whole. “Thus the wide western domain became the common property of the states and a bond of union at a times when the life of the new nation depended upon a harmonious relation of its parts” (Hibbard, 1965, p. 9). This land made up the original public domain and was held as territories of the United States, not full members of the Union with all that entitles. That is not to say that these territories were to be held in such inferior status perpetually, as the territories were to organize then apply for statehood. The Continental Congress further passed a series of measure during the 1780’s regarding the public domain and qualifications for statehood. In particular, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set forth federal policy in respect to the territories of the United States.

            The Continental Congress enacted An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio, more widely known as the Northwest Ordinance, on July 13, 1787. While the title may be misleading in that it refers to the land northwest of the Ohio River, it nevertheless became the basis of territorial governance throughout the expansion of the United States.  The Northwest Ordinance laid out criteria on territorial governance and eventual statehood. First, the Northwest Ordinance called for temporary federal governance over the territory. In Sections 1, 7, & 12, the Ordinance stated that the territorial government of the public land was to be temporary. Second, the ordinance provided for admission of new states made from this territory into the Union of States on equal terms. “Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever…” (An Ordinance, Art. 5, 1787). This establishes the ground rule for admission of new states in the Union.

Furthermore, in Article 4, the Northwest Ordinance calls for the eventual disposition and extinguishment of federal title to the land. “The legislature of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers” (An Ordinance, Art. 4, 1787). Clearly, the Northwest Ordinance did not intend for the federal government to retain ownership of all the land that was ceded to the Union during those early days of the Republic. In fact, the Ordinance intends the exact opposite, it intends for the federal government to eventually turn over ownership in a variety of ways. Additionally, the Ordinance calls for all future states admitted into the Union to be equal with respect to their rights and sovereignty as the original thirteen states that claimed independence from Britain. Yet, as noted previously, the western states seem to be unequal to the eastern states when referring to the jurisdiction over the land within their borders because the federal government has not disposed of their holdings as was required. Moreover, as shall be shown, the federal government has come to declare that it will retain all public land in federal ownership indefinitely. However, before examining such changes, the United States Constitution should be examined.

            Just two months after the passage of the Northwest Ordinance, the States’ delegates held a convention to revise the Article of Confederation; instead the delegates ended up discarding the Articles of Confederation and drawing up a new constitution. So far, this essay has examined documents from before the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787. The fact that these land ordinances predate the creation of the Constitution may call into question the legality of such ordinances under the new government and constitution. However, this is not the case as can be shown by examining the Constitution. First off, the Debts and Engagements clause provides that, “all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the Untied States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation” (US Const., art. VI § 1). Certainly, the resolutions passed regarding the public domain, like the Northwest Ordinance, are prior engagements the states entered into, therefore under Article VI of the Constitution they are still valid.

Furthermore, certain parts of the Constitution can be seen to reflect these pre-constitutional engagements. Regarding the creation of new states out of the territories, the Admissions clause says “new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union” (U.S. Const., art. IV § 3.1) and that “the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government” (U.S. Const., art. IV § 4), which was specified under the original agreement to cede the western claims to the federal government.

Additionally, that the federal government is to dispose of title can be seen in the Property Clause which states “the Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of other property belonging to the United States” (U.S. Const. art. IV § 3.2). Importantly, while the Property Clause grants the federal government the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories, that power must be in concordance with the disposal of the land from federal title, just as the earlier ordinances specified. Certainly, the original land policies adopted during the Confederation continue to hold true under the Constitution as well. Therefore, the land ordinances still applied to the land, with few exceptions, that was acquired throughout the expansion of the United States.

            Obviously, the landmass of the United States has greatly increased since Independence from Britain. Some land was bought, some gained by treaty, and right of conquest won other land. While the story of westward expansion is widely known to Americans a brief review is still merited, as most of this land became part of the public domain. The first acquisition of land by the federal government after the original ceded land from the States was the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory from France, almost doubling the size of the United States and gaining the valuable port of New Orleans. Eventually, all or parts of thirteen states were created from this purchase. Similarly, the United States purchased land from Spain, that sold what is today Florida in 1819. However, the next acquisition came about in a different way.

Texas was originally part of Mexico but revolted after much American settlement and became independent, and “wanted to join the Untied States at once, but arguments over slavery in the Congress held up acceptance of the treaty until 1845. In the meantime, Texas was an independent republic” (Clawson, 1968, p. 40). Since Texas was its own sovereign country, it was able to negotiate terms on entering the Union. One was that little of the land within the State was to be ceded to the federal government, but over ninety-eight percent would stay in the possession of Texas. Thus, Texas was never a public domain state, though Texas did sell some of its western and northwestern land upon statehood to the United States, which became part of the public domain. Eventually, the land sold by Texas became parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. While Texas was irregular, the next addition was more conventional.

The Pacific Northwest was sought after by the United States and Britain; however, in 1846 the two concerned parties signed a treaty giving control of the northwest to the United States. Eventually, the Pacific Northwest became the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming. Additionally, the United States gained the Southwest from Mexico after winning the Mexican-American War when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed. Though the war was won, the United States still paid Mexico for the land that was gained. A few years later, the United States initiated the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico, which added a small strip of land on the southwest border. The land acquired from Mexico eventually became the States of California, Nevada, Utah, and large parts Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. The last large acquisition of land by the United States was Alaska, which was purchased from Russia in 1867. Interestingly, the last state, Hawaii, “was an independent nation which joined the United States at its own request” (Clawson, 1968, p. 43), similar to Texas. The above-mentioned land acquisitions account for the fifty States, however, the United States has acquired more land other than the States.

Other additions were made to the United States as well. Puerto Rico, Guam, and for a time the Philippines were all a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The Virgin Islands, islands in the Pacific were acquired as well. However, “these extra-continental possessions (including Hawaii) never had a public domain in the sense that the public land laws were applicable to them” (Clawson, 1968, p. 43). Clearly, over the course of American history the federal government expanded its territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean and beyond. However, as previously shown, the original intent was for the federal government to relinquish ownership of the land eventually.

            Undoubtedly, the obligation of the federal government is to transfer the public domain to private ownership or to the states as fast as possible. This is exactly what the federal government did for more than a century in a variety of ways. “In the disposition of the public domain, Congress has enacted land laws which may be roughly divided into five categories-land grants, cash policy, settlement policy, disposal to veterans, and general land laws” (The policy for disposing, 1961, p. 291). Initially, land grants were given to states made up from the public domain for various public purposes, namely, education and internal improvements. Educational grants were used by the states to fund their public school system by the ability to tax or to sell the land for profit to be used for education. In addition, grants were given for the creation of higher educational institutions; each State has a land-grant university. In Illinois the land grant college is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign designated in 1867. Furthermore, many states have agricultural and mechanical (A&M) colleges as a result of these land grants. Education was not the only reason land grants were made.

Additionally, grants were made for internal improvement projects such as wagon roads, canal construction, river improvements, reclamation of swamplands, and desert irrigation, among others (The policy for disposing, 1961). However, not all land grants were made to the states, for instance, grants made to build railroads across the country were given directly to the private railroad companies. Furthermore, cash policy was a way to gain revenue. After Independence, the new nation was heavily in debt but owned a lot of land, so the federal government went about selling land to add to the federal treasury. According to Clawson (1968), “by the middle of the 1830’s, land sales accounted for over 40 percent of the income of the national government” (p. 56). With such national debt today, this could very well help create a balanced budget, especially with all the resources in the west that could be capitalized upon by private companies or state governments that would be willing to purchase or develop such land. Regardless, cash policy was not the only was the land was disposed of.

Another form of land disposal was settlement policy. Most remembered of the settlement policies is the Homestead Act of 1862, which granted settlers 160 acres of land at no charge as long as they improved and resided on the land for at least five years. Later, the Homestead Act was changed to include 320 acres and required only three years of occupation instead of five years. Before long, other enactments were made to induce westward settlement, including The Timber Culture Act of 1873, the Desert Land Act of 1877, and the Carey Act of 1894 among others. Continuing with the disposal of the public domain, grants were also giving to veterans for their service and this practice actually pre-dates the Revolutionary War, as many colonies would grants land to induced enrollment in the State armies/militias. With this practice well established, when the War of Independence broke out the “Congress turned almost at once to the unoccupied land as a means of inducing enlistments in the army” (Hibbard, 1965, p. 117). Once again, the nation turns to land as payment as land was in abundance. Surprisingly, military land bounties continued for veterans up to the First World War. Lastly, let us not forget that land was set-aside for Native American Reservations, who are often forgotten about in the history of westward expansion. In the end, the federal government has been shown to fulfill their trust obligation of land disposal for about the first century of the nation's existence. However, that policy began to change during the end of the nineteenth century as society began to change.

            During the Progressive Era, new ideas were emerging regarding the role government was to play in American society and economy. The late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds was a time of the working class, labor unions, and the beginning of environmentalism. The National Forest system expanded under the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, as thirty-three million acres in 1905, then another thirty million in 1906 were added. The rise of socialist ideals diminished people’s faith in laissez-faire policies. Remember, socialism and communism call for the abolishment of private property. Regardless, the Progressive Era brought federal government expansion with the creation of bureaucracies and contrived responsibilities that reached into many facets of America. As for public land policy, “the Progressives are notable for their reversal of a long-standing federal policy of disposing of federal lands to the states, settlers, and other private landowners. Instead they reserved hundreds of millions of federally owned acres from sale or disposal to private properties” (O’Toole, 1999, p. 73). Clearly, the federal government succumbed to populist sentiment and terminated the disposal of the public domain. However, the federal government is under obligation to dispose of the public lands, yet has disregarded that mandate to the detriment of the States and the people. Apparently, this change in federal land policy all began in 1891. Coffman (2012) states that:

Congress…passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 that reversed a hundred years of U.S. policy and ignored the Constitution’s severe limitations to federal landownership. The Forest Reserve Act gave the president vast powers to “set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forest…as public reservations.” In addition to violating the constitutional limitations, it also trumped the Equal Footing Doctrine and effectively sacked the 10th Amendment (p. 43).


This reversal of long held policies was just beginning with the passage of the Forest Reserve Act. Soon other Congressional enactments created land bureaucracies and encroached upon Constitutional land policies. Briefly, the Transfer Act of 1905 created the Forest Service to manage the national forests. The Weeks Act of 1911 allowed the Forest Service to purchase and create national forests in Eastern States. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 created another bureaucracy, the U.S. Grazing service that was eventually rolled into the Bureau of Land Management along with the Forest Service, among others greatly expanding the control the Federal government has over the public lands within the States of the Union (Coffman, 2012). While these Acts are contrary to the obligations of laid forth in the original compacts, it was not until the 1970’s that the federal government stated it will not hold itself to the obligations of land relinquishment. Leading up to this breach of contract was the Supreme Court case named Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 1976. According to Howell & Redd (2005), “the Kleppe court utterly vanquished independent State sovereignty upon public lands within State borders leaving only an embarrassing, subordinate jurisdictional gratuity in its place” (p. 115). This case is significant because it laid the groundwork for the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, just four months after the Kleppe decision was made, almost as if it was planned.

The Federal Land Policy & Management Act, or FLPMA for short, was the figurative nail in the coffin on the obligations of Congress respecting the disposition of the public domain. For the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (1976) states, “the Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership” (Sec. 102(a) 1). This Act renders permanent the territorial governance of the remaining public lands, even though this stance is in direct violation of previous obligations. Consequently, the western states are most affected by this rendering, as the public lands are predominantly located in those western states. Therefore, they are not being held on an equal footing with the other states. The Equal Footing doctrine has been shown to be an essential condition to statehood, and can further be shown in certain United States Supreme Court cases. For instance, Bolln v. Nebraska (1900) states, “upon the admission of a state it becomes entitled to and possess all the rights of dominion and sovereignty which belonged to the original states” (173 U.S. 83). Yet, according to the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, these western states shall not have all the rights of dominion and sovereignty equal to the original thirteen states over their land.

Furthermore, Pollard v. Hagan (1845) says, “Whenever the United States shall have fully executed these trusts, the municipal sovereignty of the new states will be complete, throughout their respective borders, and they, and the original states, will be upon an equal footing, in all respects whatever” (44 U.S. 212). Clearly, the Constitution and the land ordinances meant for the states to be equal in all respects and the U.S. Supreme Court has said as much. Yet, it is evident by the amount of federal land in the western states that they are on an unequal footing with the eastern states. Furthermore, when territories became states, a contract was made between the state and the federal government. These contracts are the state Enabling Acts, which reiterate the Equal Footing Doctrine.

When a territory met the conditions of statehood, the people of said territory would apply to Congress for statehood. The people of the territory would contract with the United States in Congress assembled that authorized the territory to create a state constitution and their own state government. Under these state Enabling Acts, states were admitted in to the Union on an equal footing with the original thirteen states. Each state has an enabling act that admits the new state into the Union equally. Howell & Redd (2005) note, “each State enabling act compact required that the paternalism of federal territorial supervision be terminated and also that the laws of the United States within the new State, from that date forward, be the same as in the original States” (p. 63). Repeatedly it has been shown that the states are to be equal. By examining the early land ordinances, the Constitution, Supreme Court interpretations and state enabling acts makes clear the original intentions of a union made of equal members.

Furthermore, the states' enabling acts called for the disposition of public lands. For instance, Utah’s Enabling Act (1894) not only says that Utah will be admitted equally but also “that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States” (Sec. 3). Clearly, the obligations in the enabling acts reflect the principles evident in the early land ordinances and the Constitution. However, more than sixty-five percent of Utah is still held by the federal government. And, according to the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, that land in Utah will stay in the hands of the federal government, not to be turned over. Consequently, Utah is at a disadvantage and an unequal footing with the original states. That is not to say that there does not exist some necessary reasons for federal ownership.

Obviously, the federal government needs to look at the defense of the nation and perform other functions such as the postal service that would require the federal government to own land within a state. This is provided for in the Enclave Clause in Article I § 8, which states,

The United States shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten square miles) 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 purchase 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 building (US Const., art. I § 8.17).


Notice that the places ceded or sold to the federal government must be agreed upon by both Congress and the state legislature, just like the original thirteen states agreed to cede their western claims to the national government. Plus, there must be a good reason that the federal government would need to own such land like forts, dockyards, and other needful things. However, the reversal of long held land policies by the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 were not agreed upon by the state legislatures. Furthermore, The federal government does not need the millions of acres now in its possession to fulfill its enumerated powers. According to modern interpretations, the vast tracts of land in the West will stay in federal ownership to the impairment of the states without state consent. This seems to hold the western states in a somewhat colonial or inferior stature, further disregarding the principle of equal footing among all states in the Union. Not only are the western states unequal but they also bare other costs of federal land ownership.

The western states also bear economic costs of federal control. When Pennsylvania tried to tax the National Bank early in American history, the Supreme Court established that states could not tax federal land or institutions. While this may be of little significance in the east where the federal government owns little land, in the West where the federal government holds vast tracts of land the significance is great. The western states are at a disadvantage regarding tax receipts, even though they do receive payments in lieu of taxes from the Federal government. Additionally, the states cannot capitalize on all the resources contained within the public lands within their boundaries. Many of the western states contain natural resource that could create jobs and boost local economy if able to pursue yet they cannot because the federal government controls the land. An example is the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah where former President Clinton set aside some 1.6 million acres as a national monument. Coincidently, that area contained the worlds largest clean coal deposits that now are off limits. Interestingly, the second largest clean coal deposits are in Indonesia and are owned by the Lippo Group, which contributed millions to Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns through the family that owns the company (Coffman, 2012). Nevertheless, the example shows how the states are not able to reach their full potential in face of federal land control. Imagine the boost to the state economy and the jobs that would be created if Utah could access the vast resources located within the state. These burdens are not the only ones as further impacts are evident as well.

As noted previously, one reason the federal government disposed of the public domain was for education. States could either sell or tax land granted to them for the purpose of funding the public education system within the state. However, with the vast tracts of land in the west locked up in federal control, the western states are at a disadvantage when it comes to funding public education. “There was a almost direct correlation-the more land the national government controlled in a state, the less money for education that a state had. Education in the West is harmed by existing federal land holdings and policies” (Bishop, 2012, p.51). Not only do the modern land policies hold the western states unequal but also negatively affect the children in those states. “When Utah law makers and others did some research on these impacts, they found that 12 of the 15 states with the slowest growth in education funding were in the West” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). Clearly, the impacts of federal land control are greater than first apparent. The western states have had to allocate more of their budget to education and had to tax their citizens at a higher rate to fund education. In a nation that promotes education such as the United States, the way the western states are less able to fund public education is surprising. This should upset all Americans as the nation’s future depends on our children. All children should have all the opportunities to receive a quality education, regardless of modern views on land policy. Nevertheless, besides the afore mentioned challenges facing the western states, the people of those states face physical dangers associated with the mismanagement of the public lands as well.

 In recent years, wildfires in the West have made headlines. Enormous fires swept across states destroying vast sections of forests and even towns. Evacuations took place as the fire raced towards communities, people leaving much of their belongings to the possibility of being consumed by fire. These fires also caused great damage to the ecology of the area and are a direct result of management practices. According to Nelson (2012), “past mismanagement has turned many national forests into flammable tinderboxes where intense crown fires reaching to the top of the trees-once a rarity-consume entire forests” (para. 6). The incompetency of the land agencies is another insult to add to the others inflicted upon the western states. New environmental policies that promote no human maintenance of the forests led to conditions that eventual destroyed the habit they were trying to protect. By failing to thin the forests and keep them back from towns led to disaster. Since the federal government holds most of the land, neither states nor communities have a say in the management of the land and forests they live near. Consequently, their livelihood is at risk because some bureaucrat hundreds of miles away knows what is best. Likewise, in usual governmental fashion, bureaucracies have emerged to management the public lands.

With the land holdings of the federal government reaching into the millions of acres, someone had to manage that land. Therefore, federal agencies were created to carry out the management of the public domain. The Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are responsible for managing the land controlled by Congress. In addition, like many governmental agencies have become incompetent money vacuums. While these agencies were once highly regarded and created profit, now they have become another expense of the federal government. These agencies have become more centralized since their inception and their mission changed to a more environmental mindset instead of land management. O’Toole (1999) notes, “one result was that, far from earning a profit on the national forests, the Forest Service began to lose $1 billion per year through the 1980’s and $2 billion per year in the 1990’s” (p. 2). Furthermore, “the Park Service loses well over $1 billion per year, the Bureau of Land Management close to $1 billion, and the Fish and Wildlife Service over $500 million managing their respective land bases” (O’Toole, 1999, p. 3). Clearly, the land agencies are no longer profitable and they continue to mismanage the land. With the federal government running towards a so-called fiscal cliff every option should remain open including reforming land policies and management practices. Even the federal government could benefit from reexamining land policies. Regardless, it is clear that the western states face many impacts from the continued federal control of the public lands. Therefore, something needs to be done to allow the West to reach their full potential.

 As noted, modern land policy is far removed from the policies that were enshrined during the beginning of the nation. Current policies hurt the states’ economy and children, hold those western states unequal, and create fire hazards to the communities nearby. Therefore, a real effort in reexamining the original intent of federal land policy is needed to fix the problems. Obviously, the Kleppe v. New Mexico decision could by reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court leading to the abolishment of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act and a reassertion of original intent on the disposition of the public domain. Of course, achieving such would be an enormous task that the federal government would doubtfully initiate itself.

On the other hand, western states (hopefully with their eastern brethren) could force the issue somehow. Howell & Redd (2005) suggest that the states could bring suit against the federal government for breaching the contracts that are the State Enabling Acts. The authors note that since the federal government has not fulfilled the terms of the Enabling Acts, “these States, therefore, have grounds for legal action on this and every other term of their respective enabling act compacts which remain faithlessly unfulfilled by the United States and their agent Congress” (p. 379-80). If the United States of America is a nation of law, and contracts being law than the federal government should respect their obligation. Since the federal government has not turned over the land, holding those states unequal, violate not only the enabling acts but also the original trust compacts created when the original states ceded their claims to the federal government. If even just the western states affected united in suit against the United States would be a monumental case that probably would go to the Supreme Court.

Likewise, the states could possibly file suit on grounds that the federal government is in violation of the Tenth Amendment in that current land management powers were not delegated to the United States, but are reserved to the States. Another argument could claim civil rights violations as “the people of that State are denied republican self-governance or, that is, political rights, equivalent to those of the original States” (Howell & Redd, 2005, P. 383). Nevertheless, any of these arguments would shake the current political foundation, but may be necessary to preserve federalism in face of growing national power. Regardless, other remedies exist to the states as well.

Besides filing suit against the federal government, the state could act on their own within their borders. The original thirteen states guarded their sovereignty jealously, which continued throughout American history. This tradition continues today in the West where the states are seeking to control all the land within their borders, aside from the properly ceded small tracts of land the federal government needs to fulfill basic functions. Several western states have initiated measures to solve the problem of federal land control. For instance, the Los Angles Times (2010) reported “the Utah House of Representatives… passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development” (Riccardi, p. 1). This will no doubt spark a long legal battle between Utah and the United States that may spread to other states. In fact, Arizona just recently voted on Proposition 120, which called for similar measures to gain control the public land within the state and reaffirm equal footing. Arizona made exemptions from the proposition for the Native American Reservations within the state and with land properly ceded to the United States. However, the proposition failed to pass in Arizona but doubtfully did the issue fade. Other states have also shown interest in such measures as a possible solution to the problems they are facing. Clearly, the public land policy is a big issue in the West but not so much elsewhere.

Many easterners know nothing about the issue facing the western states, much less grasp how land policies actually affect people in the West. But, the issue affects all states for if the federal government discriminates against one state what is to say that it cannot do the same to all the states. The situation is a real test for federalism. Are the states to be slowly subjugated to a centralized national government or are the states going to retain their rights? The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of centralized power and established a new nation in a way to best contain the ambitions of tyrants. Besides, most of the resources are located in the West so it would do well for the eastern states to support the western states if they continue to want goods that come from the West. Regardless, “the only real solution is giving states greater control over their destiny” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). The current land policy creates a volatile situation that could be easily solved by looking back to the original principles of the Constitution. As has been discussed, the original intent was for the federal government to dispose of the land to newly created states or private entities. Some may say that the original land policies are outdated and no longer are applicable. However, looking at the mismanagement by the federal government and the disadvantage placed on the western states, following original intent cannot by any worse. In fact, many states already have their own land management agencies but little land to manage compared to that of the federal government in western states. The United States should follow the original obligations and dispose of the public domain to the states or to private entities.

Over the course of American history, the nation’s borders grew and the land policies changed right along with. From the original practice of disposal to the modern retention policy the view on property rights has altered. Today, the federal government owns close to a third of the land in the United States, mostly in the West. This essay has examined the implications of federal ownership. The western states are being held on an unequal footing with the eastern states contrary to original intent. They are not able to capitalize on resources within the state and are not able to tax the federal land within their borders. Educational impacts are present as well, as public school funding suffers. Moreover, under the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, the federal government said it would no longer dispose of the public domain. However, this essay has shown that this policy is against the original obligations of the United States. The Founding Fathers feared a tyrannical government, and held property rights in high regard. Is this federal breach on land policy an attempt to acquire more power? The Founding Fathers also knew that locals could better govern and manage themselves better than a distant authority. Likewise, they supported federalism as “Federalism is rooted in the core belief that local governments are better suited to address local issues than a distant, out-of-touch federal government” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). Today, Washington is dictating land policies to locations far away with little success. A real review of public land policies is in order if these problems are to be solved. Ultimately, the federal government needs to fulfill its obligations and dispose of the public domain to the states or private entities, except the Native American Reservations and needful federal enclaves. Only then will all the states be able to reach their full potential as members of the this great Union of States.



Bishop, R. (2012). How the West was lost: Why federal land policy disrespects our Constitution and children. The Hinckley Journal of Politics. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/669/512

Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83, 1900.

Clawson, M. (1968). The land system of the United States: An introduction to the history and practice of land use and land tenure. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Coffman, M.S. (2012, Winter). Our Federal landlord. Range Magazine. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-wi12-our_federal_landlord.pdf

Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1701-1787 (2000).

Hibbard, B.H. (1965). A history of the public land policies. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Howell, B., & Redd, B. (2005). Statehood: A territorial imperative. Helper, UT: Bookcliff Publishing.

Nelson, R.H. (2012, March 7). Free the American West. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 13, 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/opinion/la-oe-nelson-public-lands-20120307

An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio. (July 13, 1787). New York, NY: Confederation Congress.

O’Toole, R. (1999). New directions for public lands. Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy, 12(2), 73-77

The policy for disposing of public lands. (1961). Congressional Digest, 40(12), 291, 293.

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 1845.

Riccardi, N. (2010, March 3). In Utah, a move to seize federal land. Los Angles Times. Retrieved November 24, 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-utah-domain3-2010mar03

State of Utah Enabling Act. (July 16, 1894). Salt Lake City, Utah: State Convention. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/ 1894text.htm

U.S. Const., art. I § 8.17

U.S. Const., art. IV § 3

U.S. Const., art. VI § 1


The American Crisis


The American Crisis


Thomas Paine

Rare Photos



Surgeon in Parkland ER Insists Fatal JFK Head Shot Came From the Front

50 Years Ago, Secret Service Limo Driver William Greer Killed JFK with Explosive Head Shot

Will The Pope Stage An Assassination Attempt?

Will The Pope Stage An Assassination Attempt?




Courtesy of The Sleuth Journal

As I study “End Time” events, as they may now properly be called, it was recently brought to my attention by a new friend that for every truth, there is a counterpart that is counterfeit.  As you may have read from the Conspiracy Corner homepage Introduction, life in this corruptive world is ultimately a battle between truth and lies, more so than good and evil, as all crimes begin as a thought that then has to first be created into a lie to ultimately bring about the intended evil without being detected.  This being the case, we must sort out the lies from the truth before we can get at the wickedness for which the lies were instituted to conceal.  As I mentioned in a previous article, the supremely “Evil Elite” sometimes get away with their unscrupulous endeavors by masquerading their activities as acts of benevolence.  Going to war to “save” the inhabitants of a foreign land, when in fact hundreds of thousands of their citizens end up getting killed, is the most recent evidential example.

If you are a believer in an ultimate right and wrong as I am, then you may also believe in a universal creator and judge.  Some believe that this entity formed angels before humankind and that a high-ranking one chose to rebel against God, as they, like us, are given freewill.  The name of the angel in question is Lucifer, also known as “The Daytime Star”, because some believe he was initially so close to God’s throne as to radiantly reflect His glorious light.  It was only after Lucifer’s excommunication from heaven that his name was changed to Satan (or “The Dragon”), which means “Antagonist” and “The Accuser of the People of God”.  No matter how liberal we may be, we know that there is good and that there is evil which opposes it; after all, no one in their right mind would call rape or murder good. It is obviously evil, just as rescuing someone from a sinking ship is obviously an act of goodness, not evil.

A longtime friend of mine often says “As above, so below”, which is a paraphrasing of Matthew 6:10.  What he means when he says it, is that things on earth, both good and evil, are a reflection of things in heaven (at least for the moment, until God restores both heaven and earth to its Eden purity, as He has promised will soon happen, after the unfortunate Tribulation which must directly precede it as a divine purification).  Revelation 12:7-9 says, “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the Dragon; and The Dragon and his angels fought back, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.  So the Great Dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan whodeceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth and his angels were cast there with him.

If the fallen angel Satan was cast to the earth, and he deceives the whole world, then any “Evil Elite”, who are themselves deceiving the whole world, must be under the influence of this much stronger likeminded and kindred spirit, either directly, knowingly and willingly, or unwittingly in their intoxication of their debaucherous power, perhaps even themselves being directly deceived by Satan of his influential direction on their selfish and sinful actions.  (See 2nd Timothy 3:13)  When my new friend said that for every truth there is a counterfeit, he also pointed out to me that as there is a threefold part to God (The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit) there is also a threefold lying imposture of this glorious relationship:  The Dragon, The Beast, The False Prophet.  (See Revelation 16:13)  All this to say, whoever controls the world (and the scriptures say it is, for the moment, the fallen angel Lucifer; See John 12:31), and we now suspect the Evil Elite are under his control or influence, it is just a matter of figuring out who controls the world directly under Lucifer as his second in command and earthly emissary.

What I have discovered over the years from innumerous military, government and industrial sources much wiser than me – truly powerful and intelligent people do not want to be presidents or kings – they want to control them secretly in order to protect their own lives through disguise.  Who then controls these presidents and kings?  As simplistic as it may seem, practically ALL of my credible sources point to just one entity . . . The Papacy in Rome.  Why?  Because to amass a fortune in the trillions of dollars, which it takes to control the entire world, requires centuries to attain.  Just as the Rothschilds, Vanderbilts and Morgans pass on their wealth to their successors, the office and organization of The Papacy has had nearly two thousand years to accumulate wealth, master the manipulation of governments, and install a worldwide network of control and influence, the reigns of which they pass on to each successive pontifical leader.

All of this tremendous power actually originated prior to the papacy, from which it was handed to in the third century, by the great Roman empire (the Vatican is in Rome, right?), who themselves received their power and wealth from the dominion which precede them, the vast pagan government of Babylon, the originator of systematic impurity, greed, selfishness, corruption and deceit, which has been knowingly and unknowingly universally imitated to this day, just like Easter eggs and bunnies have for more than five thousand years been brought out in March to celebrate the fertility of springtime, this custom itself being directly traced to Babylonian worship of the god of sex.  “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters (the Roman church is in virtually every country and city), with whom all the leaders of the earth committed unfaithful dealings, and the inhabitants of the earth were made deliberately confused by her deceptive false teachings (“Babylon” means confusion, or the inability to discern truth from lies, right from wrong) . . . She wears purple and scarlet (the colors of the robes of the bishops and cardinals) . . . has the wealth of gold and precious stones (previous popes wore shoes costing more than two thousand dollars) . . . and has the name “Secret Babylon (hidden from the world’s knowledge or perception) – The Mother of ALL Deceit, Evil and Corruption.” Revelation 17:1-5 

Just as frightening as it is to finally have a CIA director ascend to the American presidency (George Bush Senior), we now have for the first time a Jesuit sect priest serving as Pope.  I did not realize it myself until recently, yet the Jesuit sect is tantamount to the CIA of the Vatican, yet unlike the CIA, they are supremely more ingenious, as they have been around for centuries longer, painstakingly mastering the art of deceit, skillfully hiding behind a plethora of global benevolent activities to conceal their secretive and most evil intentions.  Here is a quote from the Jesuit’s own operational writings as the standard manner with which they conduct their business, as written by the founder and first leader of the sect Ignatius Loyola, “Let us with all artfulness gain the preeminence over princes, nobleman, and the magistrates of EVERY place, that they may be ready at OUR beck, even to sacrifice their nearest relations and most intimate friends, when we say it is for our interest and advantage. This MUST be CLOAKED with such cunning and management as to avoid giving the least suspicion of our intentions. We should always be ready to accept this principle: I will believe that the evil I do is good, if it serves our purposes, which is for ALL persons on earth to become OUR subjects without the courage to give us ANY opposition.”  This philosophy of the current Jesuit Pope, by which he was trained, is actually historically recorded, yet the practice for centuries has been for the Jesuits to conceal this fact through the deceptive appearance of benevolent charitable saintliness.

Some believe that The Dragon of the evil trinity mentioned inRevelation 16:13 is Satan or Lucifer (desiring to counterfeit God; SeeIsaiah 14:12-23), that The Beast is the Papacy (the counterfeit of the working of Holy Spirit), and that the False Prophet is the Last Pope before the Coming of the Messiah (the counterfeit of the Christ).  How did Jesus prove his divinity?  By coming back from the dead after he was assassinated!  Therefore, if the present pope is indeed the last one before the Messiah’s return, then he may very well be the False Prophet foretold in scripture!  How then could he best imitate the Christ and deceive the world?  By coming back from the dead after an assassination attempt!

If such a scenario is underway by the manipulative CIA Jesuits, who have already gone on the record saying “All artfulness, cunning, cloaking and evil are justifiable to gain control over presidents and kings who aid in our quest for ALL people of the world becoming our submissive subjects”, then this forecasted plotful cunning would serve a threefold purpose:  First, an assassination attempt would immediately sympathetically endear the populous to the Pope, just as it did for John Paul Two and Ronald Reagan shortly after their assent to power.  Secondly, if the Pope were to miraculously recover from a fatal wound, it would be perceived by most to be a sign of his divinity and miracle working power (See Matthew 24:24-25 and2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12).  Thirdly, it would be a direct imposturous false imitation of the resurrection of Christ, after all, the official title of the office of the Pope is “Vicarious Christi” (vicariously!), translated “Taking Christ’s Place” (or Counterfeit “False Prophet”)!

Even a meaningless football game has players willing to lie, cheat and destroy to prevent their counterparts from victory.  How much more so are there forces allied against us for the more important task of global domination and our eternal destruction?  It all boils down to wading above the deception in a sea of lies.  Someone once said, “Whatever a political leader says, believe the OPPOSITE.  (“For every truth there is an opposite counterfeit”.)  “We’re going into Iraq to save the Iraqi people”, yet between two hundred thousand and a million Iraqis died who would not otherwise have if the United States had minded its own business.  (The exact OPPOSITE of the said appearance, you see?)  Who is the supreme religious leader of the world who is supposed to exemplify righteousness?  Without question it is the Pope, yet we know the priesthood from which he comes is rife with child molestation, perhaps the lowest of all unrighteousness.  Do you see that this exalted religious position that has secretly controlled world governments over the last two thousand years and amassed trillions of dollars to have their will in anything would be the perfect disguise for Satan?

I understand that this is an unusual topic and perhaps an outrageous prediction, yet stranger things have happened.  Most people realize that the Kennedy assassination was theatre.  Five decades have passed since then for the artful craft of contriving a global turning event on the world stage with even greater premeditation, far-reaching implication, and technical and psychological finesse.  You are readingThe Sleuth Journal because you are an intelligent truth seeker who likely realizes you live in the “Last Days” (or whatever you wish to call them).  In these End Times we must all search our hearts for the truth about life, our creator, our destiny after we die, and the powerful spiritual opposition desiring to thwart our arrival to the heavenly destination with every deceptive tactic that is available to them.

Brother Bart


Who is the Antichrist? 

The Mark of the Beast 

The Secrets of the Jesuits

Bart Tie at Bay


Bart Sibrel is an award winning filmmaker, writer and investigative journalist who has been producing movies and television programs for thirty years. During this time he has owned five production companies, been employed by two of the three major networks and produced films shown on ABC, NBC, CNN, TLC, USA, BET, as well as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. To discuss his films, he has appeared and been interviewed on The Daily Show, Geraldo, NBC, CNN, FOX, Tech TV, Coast to Coast, and The Abrams Report. Articles featuring Mr. Sibrel’s films have been published in Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today and many others.  His top awards from the American Motion Picture Society include “Best Cinematography”, “Best Editing” and “Top Ten Director”. As the writer and director of the infamous ”A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” which exposed the moon landing hoaxMr. Sibrel has collected over the years innumerous military, government, industrial and private sources for credible firsthand verification of very real conspiratorial crimes against humanity. He will use these contacts and experience in exposing the true and unbelievably horrific intentions of the hidden minority who have diabolical intentions for mankind in his bi-weekly column “Brother Bart’s Conspiracy Corner“.  When such concepts are speculative and unverified, Mr. Sibrel will acknowledge this and openly discuss the leading possibilities as a cautionary benedictionBe sure to visit his site at http://sibrel.com and subscribe to his Youtube Channel.

Veritas and CAJI/IS Exclusive – 07Oct13 – Bye, Bye Miss American Pie

Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie

Veritas News Service


CAJI/IS Exclusive


Author Chuck Frank


To understand correctly what is happening in America today, all one must do is glance at the past history of the Soviet Union and see exactly why the Communist State was established in 1922.  The USSR with treaties between mother Russia and its neighboring countries, then comprised of eleven countries such as the Ukraine, were brought together for the sole purpose of a collective arrangement and a New World Order which would be controlled by a single party and a centrally planned economy.  The philosophy was birthed to address social, economic, military security, ethnic inequalities and a “free” socialist state, with mutual “trust”, and peace but yet administered through fear, Soviet soldiers, the iron curtain, and the birth of the dreaded secret police (i.e. the KGB.)     

The newly created state sought to also destroy the old culture, religion and the family, and also take the children from their parents who may be deemed irresponsible and place them in state run schools for the purpose of collective indoctrination, namely, Marxism-Leninism.  As the Soviet Union progressed, an accelerated curriculum began to focus upon mathematics and science while also eliminating age-old values such as references to God.  Through the state owned news the propaganda machine was put into place, which led to political persuasion and placed the Soviet elite on a par with their savior Vladmir Lenin.      

The old Russian state was seen as a failure and needed to be destroyed while the new state would birth those elements which would reflect the “common good”, cleverly defined by the state.  This idealistic collective model was based upon this very premise, however in the end, the Soviet Union, because of all of its misgivings, including the abuse of power, finally lacked a solid economic base and/or incentives, while poor work ethics and the ever increasing dysfunction of Russia’s central planning contributed to a burdensome bureaucracy which in realty created vast inequalities, poverty, stack-n-pack apartment buildings, and shortages of necessities, while millions experienced bread lines for years.  Of course registered “Communist party members” and scientists experienced the good life.     

As part of the Soviet disinformation, the declaration of the treaty of 1922 specified that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included the “free will of the people” yet massive ulterior motives where already in place with regard to the falsified declaration while independent farms were eventually taken over by the state.  The breadbasket of the country, the Ukraine, is one prime example how 7 million people and children starved to death through Stalin’s reign during 1933.     

Now then, does one see a parallel in the making with America today and the old Soviet Union?  Just compare the Delta region and the redistribution of the water, which was taken from the growers to save the smelt fish.  Thousands of dead trees in the orchards became the victim of a federal ruling, which favored fish over the farmers right to more water.  Sadly, these types of policies are still happening in 2013.  

Even Russia’s own prominent newspaper, Pravada, elaborates with the following message;     

“Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama…”  “Vladimir Putin was reelected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.”  In the same article the Pravada refers to Obama as “a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those…who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.”      

So clearly, in this instance, the progressive liberal left has recklessly abandoned those various core values that birthed America as a free and prosperous nation while using communist tools to manufacture a slew of false flags such as 1000 endangered species, climate change, land use, unsustainable resources, over population, and failing schools where students have low academic skills.  To add to this list is the demoralization of America and the states purposeful destabilization of the American family and its historical sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman.    

Therefore, the stage has purposely been set for the “major transformation” of the country which is meant to divide and conquer while federalizing everything from the top down to where states and counties will either fall victim to federal mandates and/or are thrown federal money to bring about the desired communist transformation along with total control.  The nationalization of education (i.e. Common Core) is the perfect example.     

Thus, millions of people will unknowingly relinquish nearly all of their unalienable rights and their control over to government, which was originally designed as an institution meant to represent the people and their rights, but then voting and the democratic process became the illusion of the masses and control by stealth is now accomplished through a wave of presidential executive orders and unelected federal agencies which weave a tapestry of destruction.     

It is now one minute “after” midnight yet what is the solution for millions of lost souls?  America needs a heart transplant which will yield good fruits in due season.  Peace, love, joy, patience, and self control are there for the taking and these can be perfected daily, but not by catering to pages of endless government policies which oppress the people, but by genuinely returning to God who will help us navigate through this world while also blessing us and others along the way.

Brother Bart’s Conspiracy Corner

Welcome to my bi-weekly online editorial, Brother Bart’s  Conspiracy Corner.  The exploits which led me to this endeavor are both colorful and arduous.  For brevity, let me just say that I began my career as an actor, then playwright, then filmmaker, then documentary journalist, then writer.  The entertainment field, especially theatrics and film production, laid a great foundation for understanding the art of illusion, which after all, is the craft of all conspiracies.  I also had the opportunity to work in television news for a couple of years.  After my first broadcast as senior editor, I heard the producer say to the anchor, “Good show”.  “Show?”  I asked,  “I thought this was News!” I quipped back with indignation.  “No Bart . . . It’s a show.”

Just to let you know how naïve, simple-hearted and idealistic I really am to the bone, even to this day, I was actually dismayed, disappointed and emotionally crushed when I found out this little known industry secret.  I quickly saw how corporate news (which is how 99% of the world’s population receives their disseminated information) is completely contrived from the top down like a disneyland dictatorship.  I am absolutely convinced that if a nuclear bomb was dropped on Washington D.C. and the owner of the network telephoned the news director telling them that they instead wanted the lead story to be about a cat that had twenty kittens, guess which of the two events would be at the top of the broadcast?  Trust me, that is how it works.

The employees of news organizations do what they are told by the owners who write their inflated paychecks in order to keep their jobs, just like any employee at any other company.  Doing what they are told in this case means speaking the scripted words they are given and not discussing any unauthorized topic.  If they rock the boat, they are immediately fired, loosing their exalted reputation and income, with which they are often obligated to pay off enormous incurred debt, striving for the materialistic dream they themselves have been brainwashed into spending their entire energies to attain (though you can not take it with you into the much longer eternity we will all have to eventually face) . . . So goes the completely contrived vicious cycle the majority, it seems, have forfeited their souls for, to the delight of the Powers-that-Be, who lured them into this trap in the first place for the very purpose of their obliged corporate submission, to pay off the debt they have cleverly lured them into owing, all the while addictively overfeeding them with what they market as desirable wealth, yet is really an unclean pittance to the puppetmasters themselves.

Every “anchor” and “reporter” in this privileged position has the threatening sword of instantaneous termination hanging over their heads and strictly minds their acquiescent behavior to maintain their cherished position.  (I was there.  I saw this with my own eyes.)  The anchors (or “ pretty readers” as they are called) do not write what they say.  This is done by the producers, who get their instructions from the news director, who follows explicit commands from the owner of the network.  The owners are a very small group of billionaires who control many more television stations, newspapers, magazines and websites than are comfortably imaginable.  While there may appear to be hundreds of “independent” networks, in reality these are all owned by these same few people who, though they now can technically legally own the vast majority of what media you see and hear, nevertheless often disguise their proprietorship through third party entities in order for you to have difficulty discerning the complete grip these handful of individuals hold on your perception of “reality”.  Because it is their perception of the reality they want you to perceive, it is generallyfalse.  That is to say, you are being repeatedly lied to, day in and day out, from morning to midnight, twenty-four/seven, three hundred sixty-five, by news organizations that have the seductive appearance of helping you see reality, when in fact it is as contrived as a wrestling match.

Before president Reagan so graciously and seemingly incidentally deregulated the media industry (though this was the main objective of his and his successor’s presidencies), the number of television stations and newspapers an individual or corporation could own were strictly limited, in order to promote open debate of alleged facts and separation from political influence.  With Regan’s help, monopoly restrictions on media outlets were greatly reduced.  Bush senior followed suit by eliminating more of the media monopoly restrictions.  Clinton virtually eliminated all the remaining monopoly restrictions.  Bush junior then threw out the very few restrictions which were left.  (Painstakingly insidious, isn’t it?)  Presently, the government has even given itself the right to seize all media control (in order to take hold of the few independent renegades which are left like our beloved Sleuth Journal) for the sake of a “national emergency” . . . whatever they decide that is!

In addition to all this, unbeknownst to practically the entire world until the publishing of these words, the United States authorities have required as of 2012, through sly mandatory adoption of proprietary digital encoding secretly written by the defense intelligence agency and passed off as civilian innovation, that all television and radio broadcasts be preceded by a ten second delay as to permit their interruption, cessation or imperceivable overdubbing and editing by monitoring intelligence agencies.  This is why the government insisted that all broadcasts be digital by 2012.  Funny, isn’t it, not a single news story about how newer, faster, better and more advanced technology is, for some reason, ten seconds slower.  When I investigated this, a high ranking broadcast engineer (who prefers to remain anonymous) said that the codec was written in such a way to deliberately loop the processing for ten seconds so that a theoretical expletive might be censored out before broadcast.  Trust me, in today’s culture of declining morals, the Powers-that-Be are more concerned about their dark secrets being inadvertently exposed than swear words of indelible familiarity entering overly jaded ears.  (In a later article I will tell you the prime news event I suspect they are targeting in the near future for censorship.)

All this to say, what is perceived is what is at issue.  That is why a slow, calculated objective was set and met to completely regulate what people see and hear through the media, all the while cleverly disguising the plan through the evil lie of “de-regulation”.  (You’ve got to almost admire the intelligence, skill and artfulness of such masterful criminals.)  These same entities call treasonous legislation “patriotic”, so that if you don’t support it you can be labeled “un-American”.  They give medals of “honor” to pathological liars, whom the public is misled are heroes.  They trick you into believing we live in a “free democracy”, when we are more enslaved than the Hebrews in ancient Egypt.  (After all, what is the best way to have a slave? . . . One in which the slave is deceived into believing they are free!!!)

Why is all this being done. . . To completely control YOUR perception.  This is the heart of all conspiracies.  Criminals do not want to be caught, right?  What is the best way to not get caught?  Flee?  No.  To disguise your crimes as acts of benevolence.  What is a disguise after all, if not a conspiracy?  Those in control have even tried to trick us into thinking that a “conspiracy” is foolishness.  You see this?  They call truth “foolishness” Pretty evil, huh?  (That makes you stupid for believing the truth!  Who wants to be stupid, right?)  The fact is, half of all crimes are conspiracies!  Half are done without forethought in the heat or emotion of the moment, and half are plotted out in advance . . . conspiracies.

Funny, isn’t it?  Someone wants you to overlook half of all crimes in the entire world!  Who would want you to do this?  The people committing the crimes, of course!  We have to understand that if a tiny spider less than the size of a dime can meticulously plan and trap its prey weeks in advance, the human mind, if inclined to evil, can do soooooooooo much moresoooooooooo much farther in advance!  These chess players of evil even progress from century to century by handing down their art to their offspring apprentices, who plot even more subtly with greater advance forethought as time goes on.  We are now living in that age!

My first article will be about what some have called “The Father of all Conspiracies”, the audacious moon landing hoax.  Even if this topic wasn’t my specialty (which it is), I might start with this one anyway, as it may be the most “in-your-face” manipulative “through-the-teeth” lie ever told by humanity!  After all, if half of all crimes are conspiracies, and conspiracies are simply lies, then this adventure that we are embarking on as writer and reader is one to discern truth from lies, a most important task in a world where at least half of all information is deliberately false.

While some say that the first sin to enter the world was that of pride by Lucifer, that sin was actually said to have been committed initially in heaven.  Some believe the very first sin committed on earth was not pride, nor murder, nor theft, nor adultery, nor idolatry . . . it was a lie.  It was not even committed by a human, rather by Lucifer himself, the chief of all the fallen angels and the instigator of all iniquity.  The first people on earth, in a state of innocence, were said to have been led astray by perhaps the most serious and devastating of all sins, and yet perhaps the most unsuspecting sin.  A sin, so devastating in fact, that the entire world and all of humankind would be mired in agony for millennia because of it, in ever increasing despair and self-destruction, because of the seemingly unstoppable fire of ruin initially sparked by just one simple lie.

If I take your coat, there is poof of that in the material which I possess and that you no longer have.  If I kill your brother, you can see his body and orphaned children.  Yet, if I tell a lie, where is it?  You see, a lie is the only sin that is not physical.  It is purely spiritual.  Satan, “The Father of all Lies” is also called “The Lord of the Air!”  (Can you see the air?)  A lie is the only crime that you can not touch and see, that in and of itself, there is no proof of.  That is why this misdeed is a favorite of evildoers.  While all have sinned and fallen short of perfection, some it seems enjoy the activities of corruption, destruction and deceit, while others who are also flawed, nevertheless strive toward good deeds and the betterment of the world instead.

Because I believe that all are equally intrinsically good and evil, life is not so much a battle between right and wrong as it is a battle between truth and lies . . . because this ultimately leads to good or evil . . . Truth leads to good.  Lies lead to evil.  Life is wonderfully simple!  Revealing “conspiracies”, if true, lead to good because they lead to truth.  It has been said that, “Some people love lies instead of truth because their deeds are evil and for fear that truth will expose their wickedness which is concealed by their lies.”  The word “wicked”, by the way, originated by the two-strand wick of an ancient candle, one representing truth and the other lies.  You see, the artful liar will mix falsehood and truth together, in order to better deceive you.  In fact, this is the ever consistent pattern of masterful conspiratorial liars, mixing error with fact, to better camouflage the lie itself, as well as the crime the lie is trying to conceal.

Like I said, I am simple-hearted, optimistic and idealistic to the bone.  Why then is such a naïve person now given the work to unravel intricate, evil and long premeditated worldwide reaching conspiracies?  Perhaps because if I can grudgingly admit that the world I love and strive for in holiness and perfection is, regrettably, filled with spider webs of unfathomably precalculated deceit, then you too may see the shocking, yet necessary to perceive for freedom and long-term wellbeing, truth.  Our quest, together as writer and reader, will be to sift the precious truth out of a sorrowful world of lies.  Sound like fun?  Not really . . . yet it is work which must be done!

-Brother Bart


BarBart Sibrelt Sibrel is an award winning filmmaker, writer and investigative journalist who has been producing movies and television programs for thirty years. During this time he has owned five production companies, been employed by two of the three major networks and produced films shown on ABC, NBC, CNN, TLC, USA, BET, as well as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. To discuss his films, he has appeared and been interviewed on The Daily Show, Geraldo, NBC, CNN, FOX, Tech TV, Coast to Coast, and The Abrams Report. Articles featuring Mr. Sibrel’s films have been published in Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, USA Today and many others. His top awards from the American Motion Picture Society include “Best Cinematography”, “Best Editing” and“Top Ten Director”. As the writer and director of the infamous ”A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” which exposed the moon landing hoaxMr. Sibrel has collected over the years innumerous military, government, industrial and private sources for credible firsthand verification of very real conspiratorial crimes against humanity. He will use these contacts and experience in exposing the true and unbelievably horrific intentions of the hidden minority who have diabolical intentions for mankind in his bi-weekly column “Brother Bart’s Conspiracy Corner“. When such concepts are speculative and unverified, Mr. Sibrel will acknowledge this and openly discuss the leading possibilities as a cautionary benedictionBe sure to visit his site at http://sibrel.com and subscribe to his Youtube Channel.