Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Patsy Hunt? FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate "People talking about Big Government"

© Activist Post

In keeping with the tradition of the FBI’s position on gun rights, it appears the Bureau is working overdrive to monitor and harass gun owners and the gun shops that sell to them.

While government surveillance of gun purchases and gun owners is nothing new, a recent visit by an FBI Counterterrorism agent to a Columbia, South Carolina gun shop has only reinforced the knowledge that the U.S. government is growing more and more concerned by the prospect of a well-armed populace – particularly one that prefers to live without constant government interference in their personal lives.

While the narrative surrounding “counterterrorism” operations used to eviscerate civil liberties after 9/11 was initially based upon the threat of Muslim fundamentalists, that narrative has clearly shifted to a focus on gun owning, law-abiding American citizens - both those who are politically active and those who are blissfully ignorant of current events.

For many, this shift of focus has been quite the surprise. Thus, when the Columbia, South Carolina gun shop in question was approached by an FBI counterterrorism agent on Monday, April 14, the individuals who spoke with him were somewhat alarmed to realize that the agent's concern was not fundamentalist Muslims but Americans who promote small government.

According to an individual who was present during the visit (this person will remain anonymous for obvious reasons), the agent pulled up in a regular vehicle in plain clothes and took a look around the shop as if he were considering a purchase before approaching the staff and announcing that he was with the FBI Counterterrorism unit.

 “Never in a million years would I have thought this guy was a fed,” said the witness. “He was in a completely normal vehicle. Regular clothes. Everything. I would have thought this guy was just some downhome country boy.”

After showing proper identification, the agent told the shop owners that he was tasked with all the gun shops in the general area and that he was charged with investigating “suspicious purchases” in accordance with counterterrorism operations.

The suspicious purchases he mentioned, however, were completely normal transactions. This included, paying with cash, purchasing long guns, and other similarly innocuous behavior.

However, what surprised the owners the most was his statement regarding what he was most interested in tracking.

 According to the witness, the agent stated, “If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in. You don’t have to be so worried about that. What we’re really looking for are people talking about being sovereign such as sovereign citizens or people talking about Big Government.”

The agent also mentioned that he had a spreadsheet of all the gun shops in the area.

After this brief chat, the agent left a flyer with the shop that listed some of the more generic and normal behaviors which they were expected to view as suspicious.

Some of these trigger behaviors are:

  • Payment in cash or someone else’s credit card.
  • Reluctant or unwilling to produce valid I.D.
  • Large purchases or unusual inquiries into buying in bulk
  • Lack of knowledge involved in firearms or product usage
  • Hints at illegal or misuse of explosives
  • New or unknown customers
  • Nervousness or evasiveness
In the end, while the visit to a local gun shop by an FBI Counterterrorism agent is no surprise, it should serve as a stark reminder that the U.S. government is vastly concerned about a well-armed populace. Gun rights have been gradually eroded in the United States for decades but the assault on gun rights has been ratcheted up to a new level by the Obama administration.

Still, those expecting a public declaration of total gun illegality and martial law confiscation will be wringing their hands in anticipation for a very long time. Of course, while they wring their hands and anticipate the declaration of outright war against gun owners, their guns are being slowly stripped from their hands in an incremental fashion. Slight rule changes and isolated confiscations will continue to take place over time until the public has been properly acclimated to them as a fact of life, at which point the public’s line in the sand will be moved slightly forward once more. Again, the line will be crossed, but only slightly. Eventually, Americans will wake up to find themselves completely disarmed and neutered in a land in which they once believed they were free. At that point, with a completely defenseless population, the thin veneer of freedom will be lifted.

It is time for gun owners and gun rights activists to go on the political offensive. In 2014, it is no longer a legitimate mode of activism to be content to defend your already attenuated freedoms. It is time to make demands. It is time to throw compromise out the window.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)

FBI agents storm out from Senate hearing to avoid testifying on Insider Threat program

RT | Apr 15, 2014

It’s been two-and-a-half years since the United States government unveiled an insider threat program to keep classified networks and sensitive intelligence secure, but the officials in charge would literally rather storm away than speak about it.
From the floor of Congress last Thursday, US Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged that the interagency Insider Threat Task Force established in 2012 “for deterring, detecting and mitigating” future potential risks “was intended to train federal employees to watch out for insider threats among their colleagues.” But media reports in the years and months since, as the senator put it, have suggested “that this program might not do enough to distinguish between true insider threats and legitimate whistleblowers.”

Indeed, a McClatchy News report on the program published last summer called the initiative into question and suggested that federal employees all but spy on their own colleagues for displaying any behavior that could even be considered remotely suspicious. Grassley said allegations about the efficiency of the program prompted him to request details from the Department of Justice, but months of waiting anxiously for answers from the feds came to a head earlier this April with the official in charge sneaking out of the Senate in the middle of the highly anticipated hearing.

Grassley said last Thursday that he asked the Federal Bureau of Information for Insider Threat Program training materials four months ago, but was told to schedule a hearing instead to have his questions answered. That event was eventually scheduled for the week prior to last Thursday’s comments, but Grassley now says that not only did the FBI fail to bring the materials he requested to that hearing, but that his attempts to ask the bureau for details directly from the officials in charge of the program quickly fell apart after mere minutes.

“Unfortunately, neither my staff nor Chairman Leahy’s staff was able to learn more, because only about ten minutes into the briefing, the FBI abruptly walked out,” Grassley said. “FBI officials simply refused to discuss any whistleblower implications in its Insider Threat Program and left the room. These are clearly not the actions of an agency that is genuinely open to whistleblowers or whistleblower protection.”

Indeed, one of the only details he was able to divulge from the director of the Insider Threat Program was a bizarre attempt at reassuring Sen. Grassley that federal whistleblowers are, contrary to his concerns, able to speak up about alleged government malfeasance without fearing they’d be treated as an insider threat or, as WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning found out, sentenced to decades in prison for publishing state secrets.
According to Grassley, the head of the Insider Threat Program told the staff at the Senate hearing earlier this month ahead of his spontaneous exit “that there was no need to worry about whistleblower communications.”

“He said whistleblowers had to register in order to be protected, and the Insider Threat Program would know to just avoid those people,” Grassley recalled.

“Now I have never heard of whistleblowers being required to ‘register’ in order to be protected,” Grassley said during the most recent Senate hearing. “The idea of such a requirement should be pretty alarming to all Americans. Sometimes confidentiality is the best protection a whistleblower has.”

One of the latest intelligence leakers to serve as a thorn in the side of the Obama administration has been Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who last year started sharing classified documents about the US National Security Agency with the media. And as he’s insisted several times since, the whistleblower protections authorized by the president and touted by the White House would have done nothing to aid him had he chosen another way of exposing the NSA’s wrongdoings.

"Returning to the US, I think, is the best resolution for the government, the public, and myself, but it’s unfortunately not possible in the face of current whistleblower protection laws, which through a failure in law did not cover national security contractors like myself,” Snowden said during an online question-and-answer session last year.

"One of the things that has not been widely reported by journalists is that whistleblower protection laws in the US do not protect contractors in the national security arena. There are so many holes in the laws, the protections they afford are so weak, and the processes for reporting they provide are so ineffective that they appear to be intended to discourage reporting of even the clearest wrongdoing. If I had revealed what I knew about these unconstitutional but classified programs to Congress, they could have charged me with a felony,” he added.

Speaking last week before the Senate, Grassley said that the intelligence community has to confront the “issue of distinguishing a true insider threat from a legitimate whistleblower.”

“This issue could be impacted by both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the intelligence authorization,” he added, either of which includes language that would allow the government to continuously monitor security clearance holders. No matter which way the administration goes, however, Grassley said that “we have to balance detecting insider threats with letting whistleblowers know that their legitimate whistleblower communications are protected.”

“Those that fight waste, fraud, and abuse in government should be lauded for their patriotism,” he said.

An executive order signed by President Barack Obama in October 2011 mandated that the government establish an interagency Insider Threat Task Force “for deterring, detecting and mitigating” future potential risks like the one posed a year earlier by Chelsea Manning — a US Army intelligence analyst who downloaded a trove of sensitive documents and shared them with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. When McClatchy News came into possession of internal documents last summer, however, they wrote a report calling into question the ability of the program to do as promised.

Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material,” their report read. “They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for high-risk persons or behaviors among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.” Elsewhere, documents seen by McClatchy reports suggested that some government agencies consider “certain life experiences,” including stress, divorce, financial problems or frustrations with a coworker as being able to “turn a trusted user into an insider threat.”

Syria False Flags Exposed – War is Over

Veterans Today | Apr 15, 2014 | Kevin Barrett

I just did two Syria interviews on Press TV. Together, I think they sum up one of the biggest stories of this strange new century.

In the first interview, “US plots new wave of chemical attacks in Syria,” I go over the failed false flags – especially the big one in August at al-Ghouta – that led to the impending defeat of the foreign-backed insurgents…and pass on Gordon Duff’s information about the made-in-Georgia sarin and the possibility of new, last-ditch false flag efforts by the rebels and their foreign supporters:
“I think we need to put this news out to the world … about the manufacture of sarin gas at Tbilisi and the fact that a rogue group of Americans is apparently behind this – people connected with the Bush administration.”
The second interview, “Syrian Army Comes Out Victorious Again,” was supposed to be a debate between me and Congressional Defense Policy Adviser Frederic Peterson.

But I couldn’t find much to disagree with in what Peterson said. He pointed out that the so-called Syrian rebels have distinguished themselves by their incompetence and their propensity to commit atrocities, and that the Syrian government has clearly won the war.

The best thing that could happen now, Peterson said, would be for the international community to admit that the war is over, withdraw all support from the rebels, and start hammering out a solution based on the reality that the current Syrian government will remain in power.

If that is what the insider policy wonks in DC are saying, then for once in my life I agree with the DC insiders.

I added that the starting point for a solution is Assad’s amnesty offers: He has consistently proposed that any rebels who are actual Syrian citizens, and who wish to re-integrate into Syrian society by laying down their arms and promising to abjure violence, are welcome to do so.
As early as last summer, the London Telegraph reported: “Exhausted after more than two years of conflict and feeling that they are losing, growing numbers of rebels are signing up to a negotiated amnesty offered by the Assad regime.”
Though the Western media portrays Assad as a cruel and ruthless megalomaniac, and though the Syrian regime certainly does not have an unblemished human rights record, the amnesty offer underlines Assad’s pragmatism and inclination toward relatively reasonable behavior. (I find it hard to imagine that if a band of foreign-backed insurgents laid waste to the USA, they would be given an amnesty offer like this – more likely they and their children would be burned alive like the families at Waco.)

Assad has a strong motive to re-integrate the rebels and find a modus vivendi with the elements of Syrian society that have resisted his rule. He wants to stabilize his country, not destroy it.

The foreign backers of the insurgents – the Saudis, Israelis, Turks, Qataris, and American neocons – just want to destroy Syria. (Well, that’s not quite true; the Turks and Qataris imagine liberal, integrated-with-the-West-style Islamic democracy coming to a post-Assad Syria…which just goes to show what vivid imaginations they have.)

The bottom line is that due to the exposure of false-flag operations, the foreign-backed rebels have lost. The war is over.

And the 9/11 truth movement, which has done so much to make the term “false flag” part of the world’s common vocabulary, deserves much of the credit.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have ‘near-zero’ input on policy – report

Reuters / Amr Abdallah Dalsh
RT | Apr 15, 2014

The first-ever scientific study that analyzes whether the US is a democracy, rather than an oligarchy, found the majority of the American public has a “minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy” compared to the wealthy.

The study, due out in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, sets out to answer elusive questions about who really rules in the United States. The researchers measured key variables for 1,779 policy issues within a single statistical model in an unprecedented attempt “to test these contrasting theoretical predictions” – i.e. whether the US sets policy democratically or the process is dominated by economic elites, or some combination of both.
"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” the researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University wrote.

While “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,” the authors say the data implicate “the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

The authors of “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” say that even as their model tilts heavily toward indications that the US is, in fact, run by the most wealthy and powerful, it actually doesn’t go far enough in describing the stranglehold connected elites have on the policymaking process.
“Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups,” the researcher said.
“Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.”

They add that the “failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.”

Despite the inexact nature of the data, the authors say with confidence that “the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.”
“We believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened,” they concluded.

Washington Is Humanity’s Worst Enemy — Paul Craig Roberts

© unknown

How does Washington get away with the claim that the country it rules is a democracy and has freedom? This absurd claim ranks as one of the most unsubstantiated claims in history.

There is no democracy whatsoever. Voting is a mask for rule by a few powerful interest groups. In two 21st century rulings (Citizens United and McCutcheon), the US Supreme Court has ruled that the purchase of the US government by private interest groups is merely the exercise of free speech. These rulings allow powerful corporate and financial interests to use their money-power to elect a government that serves their interests at the expense of the general welfare.

The control private interests exercise over the government is so complete that private interests have immunity to prosecution for crimes. At his retirement party on March 27, Securities and Exchange Commission prosecutor James Kidney stated that his prosecutions of Goldman Sachs and other “banks too big to fail” were blocked by superiors who “were focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service.” The SEC’s top brass, Kidney said, did not “believe in afflicting the comfortable and powerful.” In his report on Kidney’s retirement speech, Eric Zuesse points out that the Obama regime released false statistics in order to claim prosecutions that did not take place in order to convince a gullible public that Wall Street crooks were being punished.

Democracy and freedom require an independent and aggressive media, an independent and aggressive judiciary, and an independent and aggressive Congress. The United States has none of the above.

The US media consistently lies for the government. Reuters continues to report, falsely, that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. The Washington Post ran an obviously false story planted on the paper by the Obama regime that the massive protests in former Russian territories of Ukraine are “rent-a-mobs” instigated by the Russian government.

Not even Washington’s stooges in Kiev believe that. Officials of the Washington-imposed government in Kiev acknowledged the need for some autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions and for a law permitting referendums, but this realistic response to widespread concerns among Ukrainians has apparently been squelched by Washington and its presstitute media. US Secretary of State John Kerry continues to turn a deaf ear to the Russian Foreign Minister and continues to demand that “Russia must remove its people from the South-East.”

What is happening is very dangerous. Washington misjudged its ability to grab the Ukraine. Opposition to the US grab is almost total in the Russian-speaking areas.

Local police and security forces have gone over to the protesters. The corrupt Obama regime and the presstitute media lie through their teeth that the protests are insincere and mere orchestrations by “Putin who wants to restore the Soviet empire.” The Russian government keeps trying to end the conflict and unrest that Washington’s reckless coup in Kiev has caused short of having to reabsorb the former Russian territories as it was forced to do in Crimea. But Washington continues ignoring the Russian government and blaming the unrest on Russia’s not Washington’s, interference. See also:

The Russian government knows that Washington does not believe what Washington is saying and that Washington is systematically provoking a continuation and worsening of the problem. The Russian government wonders what agenda Washington is pursuing. Is Washington in its arrogant stupidity and superpower hubris unable to acknowledge that its takeover of the Ukraine has come amiss and to back off? Does Washington not realize that the Russian government is no more able to accept the application of violence against Russian populations in Ukraine than it could accept violence against Russians in South Ossetia? If Washington doesn’t come to its senses, the Russian government will have to send in troops as it had to do in Georgia.

As this is clear even to a fool, is it Washington’s goal to start a war? Is that why Washington is massing NATO forces on Russia’s borders and sending missile ships into the Black Sea? Washington is putting the entire world at risk. If Russia concludes that Washington intends to drive the Ukraine crisis to war rather than to resolve the crisis, will Russia sit and wait, or will Russia strike first?

One would think that the Chancellor of Germany, the British Prime Minister, and the President of France would see the danger in the situation. Perhaps they do. However, there is a large difference between the aid that Russia gives countries and the aid given by Washington. Russia provides financial support to governments; Washington gives bagfuls of money to individuals in the government with the knowledge that individuals are more likely to act in their own interest than in the interest of their country. Therefore, European politicians are silent as Washington pushes a crisis toward war. If we don’t get to war, the only reason will be that Putin comes up with a solution that Washington cannot refuse, as Putin did in Syria and Iran.

It is a paradox that Putin is portrayed as the heavy while Washington pretends to be the champion of “freedom and democracy.” In the 21st century Washington has established as its hallmarks every manifestation of tyranny: illegal and unconstitutional execution of citizens without due process of law, illegal and unconstitutional indefinite detention of citizens without due process of law, illegal and unconstitutional torture, illegal and unconstitutional rendition, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, and illegal and unconstitutional wars. The executive branch has established that it is unaccountable to law or to the Constitution. An unaccountable government is a tyranny.

Tired of being spied upon and lied to, the Senate Intelligence Committee has produced a thorough investigation of the CIA’s torture programs. The investigation took four years to complete. The Committee found, unequivocally, that the CIA lied about the extent of the torture and kidnappings, that detainees did not undergo some mild form of “enhanced interrogation” but were subjected to brutal and inhumane torture, that the CIA, contrary to its claims, did not get even one piece of useful information from its grave crimes against humanity. The American presstitutes assisted the CIA in inaccurately portraying the effectiveness and mildness of the CIA’s Gestapo practices. During the entirety of the investigation, the CIA illegally spied on the Senate staff conducting the investigation.

Is the public ever to see this report beyond the parts that have been leaked? Not if the CIA and Obama can prevent it. President “change” Obama has decided that it is up to the CIA to decide how much of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation will be made public. In other words, unless someone leaks the entire report, the American public will never know. Yet, “we have freedom and democracy.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee itself has the power to vole to declassify the entire report and to release it. The committee should do so immediately before the members of the committee are browbeat, threatened, and propagandized into believing that they are endangering “national security” and providing those mistreated with grounds for a lawsuit.

The US government is the most corrupt government on earth. There is no independent judiciary or media, and Congress has acquiesced to executive branch encroachments on its powers. Consider the judiciary. Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights represented the father of the American citizen, who Obama said would be murdered by the US government on suspicion that he was associated with terrorism. When Ratner asked the federal courts to block an illegal and unconstitutional execution of an American citizen without due process, the federal judge who heard the case ruled that the father of a son about to be murdered did not have standing to bring a case in behalf of his son.

After several lives were snuffed out by President “I’m good at killing people” Obama, Ratner represented relatives of Obama’s murdered victims in a damage suit. Under US law it was clear as day that damages were due. But the federal judge ruled that “the government must be trusted.”

Whether or not anyone has standing is entirely up to the government. The IRS takes a completely different position on the matter. Children have standing to have their tax refunds confiscated by the IRS if the IRS thinks the IRS may have overpaid the parents’ Social Security benefits.

So in “freedom and democracy” Amerika, children are responsible if the IRS “thinks”–no proof required–that it wrote parents too large of a Social Security check, but a father has no legal standing to bring a lawsuit to prevent the US government from the extra-legal murder of his son.

Thanks to the Republican Federalist Society and to the Republican judges the Federalist Society has managed to have appointed to the federal bench, the federal judiciary functions as a protector of executive branch tyranny. Whatever the executive branch asserts and does is permissible, especially if the executive branch invokes “national security.”

In America today, the executive branch claims that “national security” is impaired unless the executive branch can operate illegally and unconstitutionally and unless citizens are willing to give up every constitutional right in order to be made safe in a total police state that spies on and documents every aspect of their lives.

Even the Government Accountability Office has been neutered. In 2013 the Government Accountability Office told the TSA to eliminate its behavior screening program as it is a waste of money and does not work. So what did the TSA do. Why, of course, it expanded the useless intrusion into the privacy of travelers.

This is Amerika today. Yet Washington prances around chanting “freedom and democracy” even as it displaces the greatest tyrannies in human history with its own.

Only gullible Americans expect leaders and elites or voting to do anything about the institutionalization of tyranny. Elites are only interested in money. As long as the system produces more income and wealth for elites, elites don’t give a hoot about tyranny or what happens to the rest of us.

Exposing the Pathocracy: Nevada ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid's reputation

© Daily Slave
Daily Slave | Apr 14, 2014 | Source

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said little as federal agents seized and then released cattle last week from the Bundy ranch, but there is little doubt that the highly charged episode was threatening to become a political headache for the Nevada Democrat.

The Bureau of Land Management is headed by former longtime Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as federal authorities descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nev.

Mr. Kornze issued a statement Saturday saying that the bureau would return the cattle and withdraw its agents from the ranch as a result of safety concerns after clashes between law enforcement and the Bundy family’s growing legion of supporters.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Mr. Kornze said.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.

Speculation spiked in recent days over Mr. Reid’s connection to the BLM episode, in which federal contractors seized about 400 head of cattle from 68-year-old rancher Cliven Bundy over his refusal to pay an estimated $1 million in grazing fees over 20 years.

“It was likely pressure from upstairs, rather than weapons from the field, that changed his mind on the matter,” the liberal group Americans Against the Tea Party said in an online post. “Fact is, Harry Reid probably didn’t want his name attached to the biggest civilian massacre in U.S. history right before election season.”

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada’s largest newspaper, criticized the BLM’s handling of the situation in a Friday editorial, saying the “federal government is all about intimidation and overreach.”

The grazing dispute was escalating quickly. Law enforcement reportedly used a stun gun twice on Mr. Bundy’s son Ammon during confrontations, and hundreds of supporters were driving in from out of state to demonstrate against the cattle confiscation.

Cliven Bundy has argued that his family’s cattle have grazed on the land for more than 100 years, before the BLM was founded and before a federal decision was issued to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise. He also has said any fees would be due to local government, not federal agencies.

“The people have the power when they unite,” Ammon Bundy told reporters last week, the Review-Journal reported. “The war has just begun.”

Read more..


Bundy Ranch - What You're Not Being Told

Monday, April 14, 2014

Top Story: Bundy Ranch - What You're Not Being Told

StormCloudsGathering | Apr 14, 2014 | CHANNEL

Sources and full script:
Follow us on Facebook:
Follow us on Twitter:
Visit our website:
Get weekly email updates:

Ukraine on brink of civil war, US partly to blame for bloodshed - Yanukovych

Voice of Russia | Apr 13, 2014
Ukraine is a foot in the door to civil war, ousted President Viktor Yanukovych said in his address from the Russian city Rostov-on-Don, where he has been residing for over a month after fleeing Kiev amid protests.  "During my time in Kiev, we never used such methods against radicals or extremists,"the former President added.

Viktor Yanukovych who considers himself Ukraine’s legitimate president believes that the country can be saved from split only with holding a referendum. Yanukovych clarified that first the Ukraine should hold a referendum, then adopt a new Constitution and after that conduct a parliamentary election.

Ukrainian power ministries made a decision on a special operation in the east of the country after meeting with CIA Director John Brennan, Viktor Yanukovych said on Sunday. Yanukovych considers himself Ukraine’s legitimate president. A source close to Ukrainian power ministries told RIA Novosti earlier that Brennan arrived in Kiev on Saturday and met with security officials before the Ukrainian Interior Ministry announced the beginning of an operation against supporters of federalization in Eastern Ukraine.

At his press-conference in Rostov-on-Don Yanukovych claimed that the CIA director met with Avakov and Turchynov in Kiev. These contacts were followed by a decision to carry out military actions. Thus, the CIA also bears responsibility for the situation in the Ukraine, Yanukovych said.

Viktor Yanukovych believes that the US bears its portion of liability for unleashing a civil war in the Ukraine.
The US has a direct bearing on the latest events in the Ukraine, Yanukovych said, adding that apart from intruding in the events in the country, the US forever gives instructions what should be done and how, Yanukovych said.

The US has a direct bearing on the latest events in the Ukraine, Yanukovych said, adding that apart from intruding in the events in the country, the US forever gives instructions what should be done and how, Yanukovych said.