Headerimage

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

VNS and CAJI/IS Exclusive

17Dec13

A Review of Public Land Policy:

How Federal Control is Detrimental to the States

by

Jefferson Tyler

ALC

            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.

 

References

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

ThP_duty

The American Crisis

by 

Thomas Paine

Rare Photos

#2-005

#2-004

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?

 

IPP

 

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

References: 

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

and

CAJI/IS Exclusive

07Oct13

Author Chuck Frank

BBMAP

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.

moon-landing-hoax

Brother Bart’s  Conspiracy Corner

Article One

There is an account in the scriptures where a zealous priest, thinking he was doing the work of God, persecuted true believers who he sincerely considered to be a heretical threat to divine truth.  (You see, you can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong.)  Then he had a conversion of thought, which led to a conversion of actions.  The leader of the group he was oppressing confronted him, and showed him that his beliefs were the exact opposite of the truth.  Willingly,though humbly, the priest completely changed his mind, heart and actions, one hundred percent, in regard to his entire life’s work and perception.  Why?  Because he was a seeker of the truth over tradition.  The battle for the truth is inevitably a battle between reality and tradition (or traditional, that is conditional, thinking).

My life story in regard to the moon landings is exactly the same type of conversion.  My father was in the Air Force, so I grew up around the latest aviation and technology.  I loved it!  Though I was only four years of age at the time of the alleged moon landings in 1969, quietly asleep in bed, my father, as a celebrated military officer, was given a VIP package of commemorative photographs of the event, which he gave to me as a cherished present.  From the age of about four to fourteen, these pictures covered an entire “sacred” wall in my bedroom.  It was a shrine (like a religion) to the intellectual prowess of humankind (which indeed it did turn out to be!)  I saw these images, which were a representation of the alleged “glorious” American moon landings, every day, three hundred sixty-five days a year, for ten years.  This means I saw theses images propagating the desired belief in their authenticity, three thousand six hundred fifty times before I even considered the possibility that they were misrepresentations of reality . . . That’s a lot of brainwashing!

Fortunately, at the age of fourteen, I saw an enlightened television program featuring an interview with William Kaysing, a NASA contractor during the Apollo “moon” missions.  He asserted quite confidently, from first hand eyewitness accounts, that the flights were staged to increase the prestige of the United States during the height of the Cold War and the pit of domestic discontentment.  After watching the program, I went to my enshrined bedroom wall of infamy and looked, for the first time, with new eyes, at theses surprisingly telling pictures.  Sure enough, just like the man said, stunning evidence of photographic anomalies were hidden in plain sight!  (They say this is the very best place to hind something investigators are looking for!)  I just had to have “eyes that see”, after all a famous prophet notably said that most people “have eyes that do not see, and ears that do nothear”.

I equate this with a salt shaker always being placed in the left kitchen cabinet, on the third shelf, on the left side, for ten years.  If your spouse inadvertently moves it to the left kitchen cabinet, on the third shelf, on the right side . . . you don’t see it, even though it is right there in front of your eyes! . . . There you stand, with the cabinet door wide open, the salt shaker right in front of you only inches away (though on the right side of the shelf rather than the left, where you were trained not to look), and you do not see it! . . . There I was, looking at the same pictures of the alleged moon landings over and over again for a full decade, yet not seeing quite obvious inconsistencies and abnormalities that would quickly give away the deceptive criminality of the event, if only I would look beyond my programmed response!

Like everybody else, I was so conditioned by the media to see what they wanted me to see, that it took real effort on my part to discernsuccinctly fiction from fact, plus I had no mentor to point out my error.  (Read my article “Introduction” at the top of “Brother Bart’s  Conspiracy Corner” for further explanation on media manipulation.)  As Stanly Kubrick’s last film was entitled “Eyes Wide Shut!”, this was my and the populous’ simplistic error.  For example, at the top of this article you see what is the most published and well known photograph of the alleged moon landings, yet there are at least five telltale signs in this picture that give away the deception that are completely and repeatedly overlooked due to people seeing what they are conditioned to see.  First of all, what most people don’t notice is the ease at which the “astronaut” has his left arm bent at ninety degrees.  If he were really in outer space on a heavenly body without an atmosphere, then the spacesuit would have to be dramatically pressurized with compressed air, which it is obviously not due to the numerous wrinkles in the fabric and the ease at which they hold their arm bent.  (The spacesuit should be puffed up like the Michelin Man.)  Secondly, if you look to the right of the actor, about waist high, just above the faint cross (+), you can see where the background changes from a faint grey color to a darker grey shading.  (In earlier pictures, which NASA later corrected, the color actually changed even more dramatically from grey to blue.)  This is where the real landscape and the false landscape (a large photograph on a the wall) converge!

In order to better get away with the deception of this fake backdrop, they have done two things. First, they rolled the real landscape slightly uphill before the wall began, so as to not make the distinction between the two as obvious. Secondly, and even more clever, the movie set they built was actually circular.  In order to discern the line between the fake backdrop and the real foreground you must look at a slightly upward angle to the right from the “astronaut’s” waist and perceive that they are standing near the wall of a set that is circular. Thirdly, in the reflective visor of the actor (which conveniently conceals who is really in the spacesuit), you can notice that there are actually three degrees of shadow.  The darkest is of the person’s full body shadow and the shadow of the “lunar lander”.  The second is the faintest area of no shadow in the top left of the visor, just below the black horizon.  The third, medium shadow, actually encompasses the greatest area, as it is the shadow of the fake backdrop wall itself, casting a noticeably large angular shadow in the foreground in front of the person in the spacesuit, as the top of it was cut with less artistic esthetics because it was beyond the camera’s view and contains three noticeable ninety degree turns.  It is not discernable in the limited area of the photograph itself, yet is perceivable by “those that see” in the visor’s expanded reflection.

Fourthly, as even the designer of the camera which took the picture admitted in his interview on “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon” (the link of which is at end of this article), the “astronaut’s” shadow indicates that “the sun” (or rather the light to represent it) is behind them, yet they are nevertheless also lit with supplemental electrical light from the front, none of which NASA admits they took on their mission, as they claimed that sunlight was more than ample.

Finally, just above and past the one o’clock position of the face visor, you see a hint of a small straight white line going up, yet it is inadvertently cut off.  Because the person is really standing on earth (in a film studio) and not on the moon’s much lighter gravity, they were being supported by cables from the ceiling so they would not topple over from the heavy backpack which was designed for one sixth the gravity.  Though the cables were undoubtedly painted black in an effort to conceal them in the black “outer space” background, they must have shown up anyway.  In their rush to conceal the cables, NASA’s “photo lab” just laid a piece of black masking on top of them, just above the height of the backpack.  Unfortunately for them, this cut off the radio transmitting antenna which should be sticking out of this part of the backpack as it does in all other photographs, yet the antenna is nowhere to be found!  How could they then communicate with people on earth a quarter million miles away without an antenna?  Oops!

In a way, like naïve Adam and Eve, you can’t blame people for initially being deceived, after all, which is a more pleasant realm to live in, one in which your country or world continually lies about science, integrity and spending, or one in which your country or world is scientifically unsurpassed, honorable and financially honest?  Naturally, people almost always seem to see the latter because this is the kind of realm they would rather live in.

Personally, if I had cancer, I would want to know about it rather than pretending that I didn’t have it.  (Obviously though, some people prefer being lied to with pleasantries.)  While pretending that I wasn’t diseased would temporarily pacify my emotions, it would also unabatedly spread the disease, potentially to fatality, because I ignored it.  On the other hand, while finding out that you have cancer is quite a downer, you can at least plan according to reality instead of fantasy, and perhaps actually accomplish more with this information, albeit seemingly depressing information, knowing that you have limited opportunity to change your life for the better.  Fortunately again, at the age of twenty-four, I had become a filmmaker, and happened to be editing a film one day for the very producer of the show I had seen as a fourteen year old ten years earlier about the moon landing fraud!  “Do you remember that guy you had on your show who said the moon landings were fake?” I asked, “What was his name.  I’d like to talk with him.”  The rest is history.

When I ask leading “intellectuals” why they will not even briefly consider just the possibility of a moon landing fraud, they say “No one would do such a thing.”  (That is to say, no one would be that audaciously wicked.)  My argument is that in a world full of genocide, murder, rape, theft, mutilations and molestations, is merely lying about a scientific accomplishment so farfetched?  After all, haven’t Nobel laureates in the past been forced to give back their medals for plagiarism and deceit?  Yes, they have!

I went from being the biggest fan of the moon missions to eventually becoming the most outspoken critic because I was open minded and willing to be wrong when the evidence presented itself to the contrary of my first opinion, even if that evidence was unpredicted, unprecedented and very depressing.  I was not totally brainwashed by false criminalistic “patriotism” to the point that I was incapable of deprogramming myself from relentless, from the cradle, deceptive government propaganda.  These type of people who vehemently appose the admission of a cover-up regarding the Apollo “moon” landings, with foaming rabid mouths and their polluted brains infected by party-line corporate college degrees, have openly admitted, time and time again, that if firsthand eyewitness Neil Armstrong himself had went on national television and confessed to the cover-up, they would still believe that the moon landings were real! Who then is mentally deficient as they claim the conspiracy theorists are?  These people will not even consider for one second, even the possibility, that the alleged manned moon missions were a cold war deception to inflate the appearance of American military superiority, as well as pacify rampant disgruntled domestic revolt, so how can the opinions of such close-minded people be trusted in the first place?  The supposed manned moon missions are a religion to them and a false one at that.  (See  2nd Thessalonians  2: 9-12)

Hitler, the master of deception, said that it was actually easier to get away with a gigantic lie than a small one, because small lies are so common and anticipated, and that no one would expect the audacity of a grand deception.  This is precisely the psychological tactic that was used in precipitating and maintaining the monumental, yet simple lie of the moon landings.  Never before in the entire history of the world did such a historical event have absolutely no independent press coverage.  Why do investigators overlook this most telling piece of evidence?  Only three government employee eyewitnesses to the “greatest event in history”?  Whatever completely government controlled photographs and images were given to the press were blindly assumed to be authenticated by the “credible” Nixon administration.  It is like giving a whining child cake for dinner to appease them and then expecting them to argue with you demanding broccoli instead!

The Vietnam War during the alleged moon missions was destroying the country from within by its divisiveness and civil protests.  Nixon repeatedly said so himself, thinking that this mounting public discontent might actually lead to real anarchy, rebellion and the disintegration of the government, not to mention his precious egotistical cushy job!  A unifying pep rally of a successful moon landing was just what the American patient needed!  Do you really think that Nixon was going to risk killing three national “heroes” on live worldwide television during his presidency when simply failing to rescue kidnapped hostages would ruin you for life as it did president Carter?  How could he absolutely guarantee a successful moon mission? To stage it! Not to mention that it was technologically impossible at the time to begin with.  In fact, according to NASA contractor William Kaysing, who worked for six years on the Apollo missions, a classified interdepartmental memo, which he personally read and proofed, estimated the likelihood of a successful manned mission on the first attempt at a mere one in ten thousand chance.

Some assume that if the Soviet Union or Chinese intelligence agencies found out that the American moon landings were fraudulent they would “spill the beans” to the rest of the world.  This is simply not true, and again, thinking only one step farther than programmed to do reveals the truth.  If wars are created for the profiteering of the “Military Industrial Complex”, as many forward thinking people including president Eisenhower now realize, then “adversaries” of America are merelyimaginary, created for profitable ends by the billionaires pulling the strings behind the scenes, who have been working toward a one world government for the last half a century anyway.  As such, the Soviet Union and China are, in fact, in-league with the United States government.  This being the case, these overseas entities would not bring the truth of such an American scandal into the light to injure their co-conspirator brother.  Any “bad blood” the United States appears to have with foreign powers is merely staged for the very purpose of keeping their complicity a secret.

Even if these two “super-powers” were actual enemies of America, they still would not expose the truth about the moon missions.  For example, if I had a picture of the president with a prostitute, would it be more profitable for me to give it away free to the press corps, or to blackmail him year after year with ever increasing tolls until the day he died?  If such countries really were enemies of America and had proof of the moon landing fraud, it would serve their interests much more to keep such knowledge to themselves and blackmail America, administration after administration, to get the behind-the-scenes negotiations to favor them, whether it regarded trade, arms, debt, or anything else they so desired.

There were, in fact, no “independent” tracking stations for the Apollo missions.  The only entities that had such capability were the United State’s own government agencies (who were complicit in the cover-up) and the aforementioned countries, who profited from keeping the secret.  Additionally, NASA launched the “Tetra-A” satellite shortly before the Apollo missions to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that their ground crews could rehearse the “moon landings” during their many simulations.  Conveniently, it was purported that the Tetra-A satellite accidently burned up in the earth’s atmosphere just before the first mission, that way the government satellite could secretly still be in service, performing the same simulation function during the “real” flights.  Furthermore, retired ground crew members recently acknowledged that they could tell no difference whatsoever between a “real” and a “simulated” moon mission.

From Wikipedia regarding The Apollo Fraud:

“Some people insist that the Apollo moon landings were a cold war deception of the Nixon administration.  However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did occur.  Anyone on earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system can apparently bounce laser beams off three retro-reflector arrays reported to be left on the moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15, suggesting deployment of the lunar laser ranging equipment at asserted Apollo moon landing sites, implying equipment constructed on earth was transported to the surface of the moon.  In addition, in August 2009, NASA’s lunar reconnaissance orbiter claimed to send back high resolution photos of the estimated Apollo landing sites.  These government issued pictures show not only what is reported to be the faint shadows of the descent stages of the lunar landers allegedly left behind, but also apparent tracks of the astronauts’ walking paths nearby in the lunar dust.”

At first (and only) glance, these appear to be relevant arguments, yet each one is, surprisingly, most easily and unconditionally refuted with only a modicum amount of further investigation beyond conditioned interpretation.  First of all, it has recently come to light through “whistling blowing” intelligence employees that “Wikipedia” is a mainstream, establishment supported, parasitical organism used rampantly for propaganda purposes by multiple government agencies such as the NSA, as they can anonymously post intelligent sounding pro-government thesis to the masses, often deliberately contradicting and smugly belittling more truthful “conspiracy theories” of very real crimes of the authorities in power, whose express purpose of these writings is to cover-up and deflect attention away from their own illegal and unholy behavior.  (See the Sleuth Journal article on this topic at the end of this writing.)  When they use words like “empirical evidence is readily available to show that the manned moon landings did occur” . . . It not only shows their arrogance (which, in and of itself, demonstrates their blindness to the facts), it also exemplifies their desperation to make an argument that is so much losing ground that they have to resort to the administration in power tactic that if you don’t agree with them you are somehow deficient in intelligence.

It was proven in 1962 that a laser can be bounced and calibrated off of the moon without a man made reflector thereon simply due to the reflectivity of the lunar surface.  Secondly, Russia put a manmade mirror on the moon’s surface during the time of the Apollo missions for this same claimed purpose, using instead an un-manned probe that would not have to suffer the biological ravages of lethal space radiation.  (See the March 1959 issue, Volume 200, Number 3, of the magazine “Scientific American”, article entitled “Radiation Belts Around the Earth”, to see how deadly and impenetrable space radiation is beyond the safety of low earth orbit where the space station currently resides.)  Thirdly, seeing how all of these lasers have their data computer controlled, it would only take one computer hacker, if they so desired, to manipulate the data shown on a scientist’s viewing monitor, which they wrongly assume is the gospel truth.  (This was precisely the case at “mission control” during the “moon” missions, where dozens of computer “operators”, who actually just read the preprogrammed data screens like news anchors who do not write their own words, and openly admitted, after the fact, that they could tell no difference whatsoever between a flight simulation and a “real” flight.)

To say that additional photographs from the criminal NASA are evidence that “prove” the moon landings were real is laughable.  They already faked high resolution, full body pictures of an “astronaut” standing right on the “moon’s surface” more than forty years ago, so what is it to fake additional pictures, with four decades better technology, of such simple things such as tiny shadows or scratches on lunar satellite photographs that are supposed to be from human foot tracks or Apollo lunar landers?  These diehard believers are just seeing what they want to see, like a naïve spouse of a cheating partner, accepting the fox’s evidence that they didn’t steal a chicken.

Additional arguments against the fraud are reported to be the hundreds of thousands of people throughout industry who contributed to the missions, who allegedly would have had to have kept the secret.  Again, seemingly a good argument, yet it is not with only a little extra thought and investigation.  Do you really think the CIA was going to tell the person making the rocket’s door handle, or the glove or the boot of the spacesuit, that they were actually faking the moon landings?  Do we really think the CIA is that stupid to tell everyone?  Just like a pyramid of power in any business, what the employee, the manager and the regional manager knows about the business’ actual agenda, is completely different than what the CEO at the top knows.  Remember, there were only three people (“trusted” government employees) who were actually there at the time.  As you will see in my film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” (the link follows this article), they were indeed on the rocket, they did launch into earth orbit (to attain zero gravity photography), they did splash down in the ocean (to add to the realism), yet the rest, beyond earth orbit, was completely contrived, like a masterful illusionist, by satellite data manipulation, complete media control, and professional movie sets.  After all, what is easier to do, actually build a rocket and travel to another planet, or simply make a movie about it?

Some of the best evidence supporting the fraud is the fact that in 1994, when the space shuttle flew to its highest altitude ever, three hundred sixty-five miles, one third higher than they normally flew, they were asked to descend to a lower altitude by mission control due to lethal space radiation they encountered by approaching too close to the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which don’t even begin until one thousand miles altitude.  That is to say, they were six hundred thirty-five miles away from radiation that was so intense that they reported they could see the radiation with their eyes closed as sparks of light hitting the retinas of their shaded eyes.  When this happened, CNN inadvertently reported this fact by saying, “The radiation belt surrounding earth is more dangerous than previously believed.”  Apparently not a single journalist on the entire planet figured out, except for myself, that this statement totally contradicts the authenticity of the moon landings.  Here’s why:

The only time in world history human beings are said to have traveled through the twenty-five thousand mile thick radiation field called the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which unbeknownst to most surrounds earth starting at an altitude of one thousand miles, is during the alleged moon missions.  Why is it then that astronauts some six hundred thirty-five miles away from this radiation, twenty-five years later, know more about it than the Apollo astronauts who claimed they were in the middle of it twelve times to the moon and back?  Remember, the radiation is now “more dangerous than previously believed”.  What is “previously believed” if not based on the reports from the “experts” of the radiation, the Apollo crews, who were allegedly the only ones in all of history to have traveled through the radiation twelve times to the moon and back, with no ill effects and no reports of any kind of the visible sparks of radiation being seen as later reported.  Again, how can people six hundred thirty-five miles away from something know more about it than people who were allegedly in the middle of it?  Of course, this is simplynot possible.  What does this mean?  It means that the people who claimed to have previously been inside the radiation field lied about being there.  Of course too, if they never went through the Van Allen Radiation Belt as this contradictory report reveals, then they certainly could not have gone to the moon either, which the transversing of this radiation would require!  Why does no one connect the dots with this very revealing information except me?  Because the dots are horrific and would break the spirit of the entire American nation if they knew the truth! 

In fact, when I discovered absolute proof (actual, on camera evidence) that the Apollo astronauts never left earth orbit (contained in a previously unseen unedited NASA reel which was never broadcast) and showed this videotape to a news director at NBC, he turned pale white, practically fainted and exclaimed, “Oh, my God!  It looks like we didn’t go to the moon!”  “I know”, I said, “What do we do?”  The man who held the betterment of America in his hand thought for a long while, slowly sunk into his chair, and then eventually “chickened out”.  He said, “I can not air this with a clear conscious.  It will cause a civil war.  I will not be responsible for that.”  While I disagree that the public knowing the truth about the moon missions would cause a civil war, they would probably demand governmental reform and start investigating other matters of corruption and deception.  Naturally, criminals would rather not get caught and preserve their way of life that reform would inevitably dismantle.

Oddly enough, when Bush Jr. was president, he went on national television and proclaimed that “The United States will return to the moon as a logical first step to Mars and beyond”.  Did no one besides me notice that if they really already went to the moon six times, why would they need to do a “first” step over again for the seventh time?  He was even so bold as to go on to say that “First we will need to learn how to protect the astronauts from lethal space radiation.”  Am I the only one curious enough to ask, “Why not do it the same way that worked so good the first time they went to the moon?”

In August of 2009 it was reported, albeit as a news oddity (and it certainly was) that a “moon rock” given to the president of the Netherlands by Neil Armstrong himself in 1969 was opened thirty years later from its hermetically sealed container by a curious museum curator after he had watched “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”.  After examination, the rock was verified to actually be a deceptively authentic looking piece of petrified wood instead!  Yet again, not a single journalist, except for myself, asked the question, “If the moon rocks are fraudulent, what about the moon missions?

If more people would only view with an open, deprogrammed mind, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”, which contains this newly discovered video evidence of the moon landing fraud, they would see with their own eyes recently uncovered unedited behind-the-scenes outtakes of false photography of the recently deceased Neil Armstrong during his historic flight.  The scene contained therein has never been broadcast to the public.  In it, Armstrong is using a one foot diameter model of the earth, from low earth orbit, to create the illusion for the television viewers, that he and his crew are half way to the moon, when they are, in fact, still in earth orbit.  This is, in my opinion, absolute proof that, though they were on the rocket in low earth orbit, the crew never went any further due to lethal space radiation.

This footage is even dated by NASA’s own computer clock as having taken place two days into Armstrong’s flight, when he is supposed to be half way to the moon, yet he and his crew are clearly shown (in these newly discovered unedited outtakes of the broadcast) to be still in earth orbit and falsifying the television photography to deceive the viewing public of their real location.  The CIA is even heard on a private, third audio channel, prompting Armstrong to respond to Mission Control’s questions only after four seconds have elapsed, in order to create the false impression of an increased radio delay, so as to appear much farther from the earth than he and his crew actually were.  Jump ahead to time  32:02  if you do not wish to view the entire forty seven minute documentary and only see the newly discovered unedited out-takes of Neil Armstrong falsifying mission photography during the his historic and now infamous mission.

The extremely simple fact is this: After Columbus traveled to the new world, everyone traveled to the new world.  After Lewis and Clark traveled to the American west, everyone traveled to the American west.  After the Wright brothers accomplished powered flight, everyone else did immediately thereafter.  Soon it will be five decades since America allegedly had men leisurely playing golf on the moon in complete safety with 1960′s technology.  (More computing power is found today in a ten dollar watch than was in the entire Apollo program!) For some reason, no one, from any nation on earth, has been able to go to the moon and survive, not even once, with five decades more advanced technology . . . Why? . . . There is only one possible answer . . . It is soooooooo simple . . . Because it can not be done . . . even today!

If all the scientists from all the nations on earth can not go to the moontoday with all the newer technology that the 21st century has to offer, it simply means, and it can not mean anything else, that America did not go to the moon in the 1960′s.  It is sooooo obvious to anyone with an open mind who does not have a religious attachment to the event.

Just as Hitler’s children, if he had any, would never see dear old papa as anything but a benevolent patriarch, these mired intellectuals will never admit that their enamored “scientific” community and “glorious” government can be just as corrupt as pedophile priest.

References: 

1)  A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”  

2)  “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon” 

3)  Fake Moon Rock Found in Museum

4)  NSA  Uses Wikipedia and Other Social Media for Propaganda