Forrmer FBI Unit Chief confirms government computer intrusion approved by Rod Rosenstein against Attkisson

Attorney and former FBI Unit Chief Les Szwajkowski confirms he facilitated forensic exam that revealed government surveillance spyware in Attkisson’s computer

As part of a new lawsuit, Attkisson v. Rosenstein et.al., former FBI Unit Chief Les Szwajkowski has signed a sworn Affidavit confirming the government intrusion into journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s computers.

Read: Former government agent admits participating in government’s spy operation against Attkisson

Szwajkowski headed up the FBI’s Electronic Surveillance Technology section. He was integral in implementing a law expanding the FBI’s wiretapping capabilities.

According to Szwajkowski, a colleague first contacted him in Fall 2012 to ask for assistance in getting Attkisson’s CBS computer analyzed for possible anomalies. Szwajkowski says he met Attkisson in January 2013 and had her computer examined by a confidential source: a forensic specialist trained in spyware detection. This specialist reportedly had access to information about government intrusion tools and technology.

The specialist quickly identified spyware proprietary to the federal government in Attkisson’s computer, according to Szwajkowski. He advised Attkisson that he and his intel associates were “shocked” that the government had used covert surveillance on a national journalist and he said they thought it was “outrageous.”

Szwajkowski says he reported to Attkisson that the analysis showed clear evidence that her computer was infiltrated with government spyware proprietary to the CIA, FBI or National Security Agency (NSA). Forensics indicated the particular intrusion uncovered by the analysis was accomplished through software attached to an otherwise innocuous email sent to Attkisson in February 2012.

The government intrusion of Attkisson’s computer was “redone” in July 2012 though use of a BGAN satellite terminal and “refreshed” at a later date using WiFi within a Ritz-Carlton hotel. The unauthorized programs were running constantly on Attkisson’s CBS laptop and included a keystroke program that monitored everything typed on the computer, every site visited, and remotely accessed the computer’s screen view.

Les Szwajkowski, former FBI Unit Chief, Affidavit in Attkisson v. Rosenstein, et. al.

Attkisson is suing former U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein for allegedly ordering the illegal surveillance on her and her family without going through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. She is also suing four former government agents allegedly implicated in the scheme. Numerous other Americans were also reportedly targeted by...

Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America's Domestic Viet Cong

“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”Col. Jeff Cooper

When one discusses the real reason for the Second Amendment – the right of citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government – inevitably someone points out the stark difference in firepower between a guerilla uprising in the United States and the United States government itself.

This is not a trivial observation. The U.S. government spends more on the military than the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. Plus, the potential of a tyrannical government is arguably upon us – with the federal government spying on its own citizens, militarizing local police departments with equipment and tactics from the War on Terror, and repeatedly searching Americans, which desensitizes them to this invasive process.

There is much historical precedent, however, for guerilla uprisings defeating more powerful enemies. For instance, the Cold War saw both superpowers brought to their knees by rural farmers – for the Soviets, their adventure in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, and for the United States, the Vietnam War against the Viet Cong.

In both cases, nuclear weapons could have been used against the guerilla uprising, but were not. Even assuming the use of nuclear weapons from the position of total desperation, it’s hard to imagine they would have made much of a difference in the final outcome of either conflict. Unlike the invading armies, the local resistance enjoyed both broad-based support as well as knowledge of the local terrain.

Now imagine such a scenario in the United States. You wouldn’t be the first person to do so. From Red Dawn to James Wesley, Rawles’ Patriots series, there is a relatively long-standing tradition of American survival literature about the hoi polloi resisting the tyranny of big government, either before or after a collapse.

For the purposes of this article, consider what a domestic American terrorist or freedom fighter (after all, the label is in the eye of the beholder) organization based on the militia movement would look like in open revolt against the United States government. In the spirit of levity, we’ll call them the “Hillbilly Viet Cong.” They would most likely find their largest numbers in Appalachia, but don’t discount their power in the American Redoubt, or the more sparsely populated areas of the American Southwest, including rural Texas.

Here we have tens of thousands of Americans armed to the teeth with combat experience, deep family ties to both the police and the military, extensive knowledge of the local geography, and, in many cases, survivalist training. Even where they are not trained, militant and active, they enjoy broad support among those who own a lot of guns and grow a lot of food.

On the other side, you have the unwieldy Baby Huey of the rump U.S. government’s military, with some snarky BuzzFeed editorials serving as propaganda.

Could the Hillbilly Viet Cong take down the USG? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s difficult to imagine that the USG could take them down.

Indeed, even with a number of nasty little toys on the side of the federal government, we live in an age of a technologically levelled playing field. This is true even when it comes to instruments of warfare. While the USG has nuclear weapons, it’s worth remembering that a pound of C4 strapped to a cheap and readily available commercial-grade drone is going to break a lot of dishes.

This sort of guerilla insurgency has a name: It’s called fourth-generational warfare (4GW), and you might be surprised to learn that you already live in this world.

What Are the First Three Generations of Warfare?

To understand how 4GW is a new and improved form of war, we first need to explain what the first three generations of warfare were:

First-Generation Warfare

The first generation (1GW) is basically what you would have seen in the movie 300. The hallmarks of this generation of warfare are armies from two different state actors leveraging line-and-column tactics and wearing uniforms to distinguish between themselves.

This generation is not entirely without subterfuge. For example, counterfeit currency was used to devalue the money supply during the 1GW Napoleonic Wars. Other examples of 1GW conflicts include the English Civil War and the American Revolutionary War.

Second-Generation Warfare

The second generation (2GW) comes with the advent of rifling and breech-loaded weapons. As students of military history know, the invention of rifling was one of the reasons that the United States Civil War was so bloody. This meant that firearms that were once mostly for show after 100 feet or so, were now deadly weapons – and tactics did not immediately evolve.

But evolve they did. Many things we take for granted as being just part of warfare – such as camouflage, artillery, and reconnaissance – are defining features of 2GW. The American Civil War is probably the first 2GW conflict. Others include the First World War, the Spanish Civil War and, much more recently, the Iran-Iraq War. The United States military coined this phrase in 1989.

Third-Generation Warfare

This phase of warfare, also known a 3GW, is the late modern version of warfare, where speed and stealth play a much bigger role. Weapons and tactics alone are less important. Instead, military units seek to find ways to outmaneuver one another before – or even instead of – meeting on the battlefield.

The era of 3GW was initiated with the Blitzkrieg, which marked the decisive end to cavalry and replaced it with tank and helicopter warfare. Junior officers were given more leeway to give orders. The Second World War was the first 3GW conflict, with the Korean, Vietnam and both Iraq Wars becoming further examples of this style of fighting.

What Is Fourth-Generation Warfare?

The most direct way of discussing 4GW is to say that it describes any war between a state actor and a non-state actor. This is also known as asymmetrical warfare, but it’s not the only difference between 4GW and other, earlier forms of conflict. Asymmetrical warfare does, to be sure, blur the lines between combatants and civilians. This is in part what made the Bush-era “war on terror” so difficult and complicated: The war was against a set of ideas rather than a nation or even an extra-national army.

There are a number of characteristics that flow from the state actor vs. non-state actor aspect of 4GW. The first is the use of terrorism as a regular tactic, almost always on the part of the non-state actor. Particularly for the state actor, non-combatants become tactical problems – you simply can’t just carpet bomb and hope everything works out.

The non-state actors tend to be highly decentralized. One faction can stop fighting as another 10 crop up in its place. Funding and source of manpower and material comes from a wide array of sources spread out over nearly the entire globe. This necessarily makes 4GW long and drawn out over years or perhaps even decades. The psychological warfare, propaganda and lawfare aspects are an integral part of...

Who wanted Gun Control?

The extreme left is now trying to create a buzz that Hitler did not support Gun Control.  Mother Jones, The Communist Magazine is leading the charge.  So here is their ridiculous argument: Well the Germans reinstated gun rights for Loyal Nazi's so technically, Hitler did not support gun control.... I am sure that comforts the dead Jews that did not get their Gun Rights reinstated, all the dead Gypsy's that did not get their Gun rights reinstated.  ALL that did not support the National Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.


ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
ALL that did not support the Socialists were defenseless and subject to the whims of a Tyrannical Socialist Government.
         

Evidence Piling Up That Prosecutors Blackmailed Gen. Michael Flynn with Threat of Prosecuting Son

Evidence is piling up that federal prosecutors committed serious misconduct in their attempt to put Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in jail.

Evidence is piling up that federal prosecutors committed serious prosecutorial misconduct in their attempt to put Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in jail. And a new filing by Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, highlights some very troubling actions by the federal government in both his and his former business partner’s cases.

On September 30, Powell filed her latest supplemental status report summarizing the acquittal of Flynn’s former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian.

Last week, the federal judge in Rafiekian’s case acquitted the man on all counts and said that the government utterly failed to prove its case.

Judge Anthony Trenga, of the Eastern District of Virginia, threw out Rafiekian’s convictions on violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act for work reportedly done on behalf of Turkey. Trenga said that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.

“The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law for the jury to convict Rafiekian on either count,” Judge Trenga wrote in his opinion. The judge added that a new trial may be warranted “in the interest of justice should the Court’s judgment of acquittal be later vacated or reversed.”

Rafiekian and Flynn worked together in Flynn’s now dissolved Flynn Intel Group before Flynn joined President Donald Trump’s administration.

Judge Trenga ruled that there was no evidence whatever that Rafiekian knowingly broke the law by filing false papers to register as a lobbyist for a foreign government. This finding has direct bearing on Flynn’s own case as one of the chief accusations against him is that he knowingly lied about working for a foreign government.

Powell’s Sept. 30 filing points out all the misconduct engaged in by the prosecutors in the Flynn case, especially in light of the Rafiekian ruling.

Powell notes that Flynn had lived up to his agreement with the government to offer full cooperation in the Rafiekian case, and that prosecutors wanted him to testify that he and Rafiekian knowingly signed a false FARA registration. But Flynn had already told the government that he did not file false FARA paperwork and that he could not lie in court that he and Rafiekian did such a thing.

That is when the government broke the agreement and barred Flynn from testifying in the Rafiekian case. This is an admission that their whole point (the false FARA issue) was the crux of their case and now that Judge Trenga has found that Rafiekian did not file a false FARA, the charges against Flynn is also untenable.

In her filing, Powell notes that they have the paper tail to prove this: “In our endless document review, we now have a draft of the statement of offense that proves the contrary, showing similar language deleted,” Powell says.

In that statement, Flynn said directly that he does not agree that he filed a false FARA, yet the government’s main case went forward as if he DID agree to this claim.

Worse, Powell shows that the government then used threats of prosecuting Flynn’s son as a weapon of intimidation to force the general’s acquiescence to the government’s desires. Powell notes that Flynn steadfastly refused to agree that he filed a false FARA, and in response the prosecutors turned on his agreement and charged him as a...

There Certainly Was an Insurrection, But Not by Trump

Beginning Jan. 6, 2021, the government-media deep state cabal sharply pivoted from accusing President Donald Trump of “colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election” to “incitement of insurrection,” a charge for which he was impeached a second time and now the farcical January 6 committee is recommending criminal charges.

Britannica defines insurrection as,

An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects.

As for Trump’s supposed role, in his January 6 speech, he promoted the First Amendment’s protections of “freedom of speech and assembly” and “the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Here are his exact words, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Trump went further tweeting, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!” How exactly was this a call for a violent overthrow of the government?

This was not a call for violence, revolt, or rebellion. In fact, President Trump authorized National Guard troops, but only Speaker Pelosi or D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser could order deployment. And neither did. The January 6 Commission ignored this.

Capitol Police welcomed protesters inside the U.S. Capitol building, and the only death was at the hands of a Capitol Police officer, fatally shooting an unarmed female military veteran.

As the FBI admitted to embedding informants in the January 6 protests, it begs the question of the FBI’s role in inciting this so-called “insurrection.” How did the FBI know to place informants there? It takes months to train and embed informants, suggesting that the FBI knew these protests would happen, well in advance, but did nothing to stop or prevent them. Or did they play a role in creating these protests through their informants? Did the FBI aid and abet this “insurrection”?

Questioning or challenging election results is hardly unusual. Just ask Al Gore who mounted all sorts of legal and media challenges in 2020. Or Democrats who contested Trump’s 2016 electoral college victory. Were these insurrections?

Was Trump behind the “insurrection” as Reps Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney insist? Or was the federal government fomenting insurrection? And was January 6 part of a long pattern of government insurrection going back decades?

Recent news suggests: “An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government” began long before Trump entered the political sphere.

I speak of Tucker Carlson recently discussing possible CIA involvement in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. JFK’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr tweeted in response, “The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d'état from which our democracy has never recovered.”

If the CIA was part of this “violent revolt against an established government,” which altered the course of America, this was a branch of the federal government carrying out an insurrection. This was six decades ago and possible government involvement in violently removing a president remains...

Susan Rice Can’t Recall Much About Benghazi Cover-Up

Susan Rice has as much trouble with her memory as Hillary Clinton. Rice testified in writing that she “does not recall” who gave her key Benghazi talking points she used on TV, “does not recall” being in any meetings regarding Benghazi in five days following the attack, and “does not recall” communicating with anyone in Clinton’s office about Benghazi.

Rice, former Obama National Security Advisor and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, admitted in written responses under oath that she emailed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Clinton’s non-government email account and that she received emails related to government business on her own personal email account. Her 2019 sworn written answers are available here.

In responding to each of the 13 questions asked of her, Rice claimed 18 times that she “does not recall” critical information.

• When asked to describe meetings or discussions about the events in Benghazi other than daily intelligence briefings, Rice said that she had discussions with friends and family, and “does not recall attending any meetings focused on the events in Benghazi between September 11, 2012 and September 16, 2012, other than attending a ceremony on September 14, 2012, at Joint Base Andrews … ” Rice said she believes she would have discussed the Benghazi attack with members of her UN staff, colleagues at the United Nations, and individuals in attendance at the ceremony on September 14, 2012, at Joint Base Andrews.
• When asked why she used a non-government email accounts to conduct U.S. government business while U.S. Ambassador to the United States, Rice acknowledged using her personal email account, at times, to conduct official government business without answering the question why she used non-government email accounts.
• Rice did not directly answer a question about deleting emails. Rather, Rice answered that “when emails related to U.S. government business were sent to [her] personal email account, [she] took steps to ensure that a copy of that email was also on her government email account.” and she “does not recall having need to review and return emails form any non-governmental email account.”

Rice’s interrogatory responses come in our FOIA lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). This FOIA suit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. We uncovered “talking points” created by the Obama White House and other documents showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Rice were false.

On December 6, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides, as well as Susan Rice, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. Judge Lamberth called the Clinton email system “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted us discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. Clinton and Mills filed an emergency mandamus appeal to avoid testimony. Their petition is still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing our FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office.

Rice didn’t recall much about the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi terrorist attack. Similarly, Hillary Clinton couldn’t recall much in her written sworn responses to our questions – which is one reason why a federal court judge ordered her in-person deposition testimony.

Judicial Watch Sues for Answers on Hunter Biden Travels

Hunter Biden was quite the world traveler when his father was vice president. Judicial Watch uncovered Secret Service records showing he traveled to China five times and also visited Moscow. But we didn’t get all the records, so we were forced to go to court to...

Promise Kept: Javier Milei Cuts 9 Argentine Government Offices on First Day

Argentine President Javier Milei used his first executive action in the top office on Sunday to dramatically rearrange the federal executive branch, reducing the number of cabinet-level ministries from 18 to nine.

Many of the ministries eliminated were folded into new offices, suggesting that their functions will continue with a much smaller office and reduced staff. Three ministries – the General Ministry, the Office of Media and Communications, and the Legal and Technical Office – were elevated to cabinet level. Milei put the General Ministry in the hands of his sister and campaign fixture Karina, which required the signing of a separate executive order to undo limitations on appointing family members to top positions.

The president – who campaigned as a small government, anti-socialist libertarian – made the elimination of at least half of the government’s top ministries a core campaign promise throughout 2023. In one of his most popular public appearances, he explained his plan by scratching ministries out of a large flow chart of the federal government one by one, describing many as ranging from useless to harmful.



The nine cabinet-level ministries in the Argentine federal government are now the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Economics, the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Security, the Ministry of Health, and the new Ministry of Human Capital. The offices of the General Secretariat, Legal and Technical Secretariat, and Communications and Press Secretariat were elevated to the cabinet, as well, though they will not function as full ministries.

The eliminated ministries are officially part of other offices, likely resulting in the elimination of the jobs of those leading the ministries and many of its bureaucrats. The new Ministry of Human Capital absorbed the Ministry of Education; Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security; the Ministry of Culture; the Ministry of Social Development; and the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity.

The Ministry of the Interior absorbed the Ministry of Sport and Tourism and the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Ministry of Infrastructure absorbed the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Public Works, and the Ministry of Territorial Development and Habitat.

Newspapers greet the inauguration of Javier Milei on their covers in Buenos Aires on December 11, 2023. Argentina’s President Javier Milei took office Sunday with a stark warning to citizens to brace themselves for painful austerity measures as he seeks to cut spending and curb triple-digit inflation, all with empty coffers. (LUIS ROBAYO/AFP via Getty Images)

The cabinet chief will control the former Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation, while a separate Ministry of Justice and Human Rights will now simply be part of the greater Justice Ministry.

Other reforms made on the first day included the absorption of the federal penitentiary system into the Security Ministry and more offices folded under Human Capital: the National Institute of Associations and Social Economy and the National Institute for Family, Peasant, and Indigenous Agriculture.

Milei’s prodigious reduction in the size of government was not a surprise, though the speed at which he executed his commitment as a candidate has surprised some political observers in the country. He made several appearances on television explaining his plan, using a massive board showing the bloated size of the Argentine federal government and scribbling away the ministries he found unnecessary.

“It is been a long job, but from here to 15 years from now, we are going to have an Argentine where everyone wants to produce,” Milei told La Nación in August.

Some of the ministries Milei promised to eliminate still exist, most prominently the Health Ministry, which he accused of mishandling the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic and leading to thousands more deaths than necessary. It remains unclear if Milei will ultimately eliminate the ministry.

Argentina is currently facing the most severe economic crisis in its history, the result of decades of socialist government spending programs and poor management. It has one of the world’s highest inflation rates – reaching upwards of 140 percent – and is experiencing high unemployment, crime, and poverty rates. Milei has insisted that reducing government spending is a first step towards restoring the Argentine economy and making prosperity possible.

Given the poor state of the economy, however, government workers have balked at Milei’s plans, as they may potentially lose their jobs and have to compete in one of the world’s worst job markets. Addressing the concerns on Monday, Manuel Adorni, Milei’s presidential spokesman, insisted that productive state employees would...

How The Federal Government Nullified the Second Amendment to 'Ban' Automatic firearms

There are two competing theories being debated today about American individuals’ “right” to gun ownership.

The original theory is that Americans enjoy a fundamental right to self-defense, in order to preserve one’s person and property against any neighbors or government agents who might act against one’s individual liberty. This is a natural right that predates our government’s formation, and was therefore enshrined in the Constitution by some very forward-thinking liberals of their time. In the words of the Second Amendment:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It should not be difficult for anyone with a passing grasp of the English language to understand that it is the “right of the People” that is protected in that sentence, and it is clearly not the expression of a peculiar power owned by the newly-founded centralized government created by our Constitution. Such straightforward, simple language in our Bill of Rights was actually suggested by Samuel Adams and John Hancock to accommodate the antifederalists at the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 and to avoid confusion about the new government’s limited powers, meant to guarantee that “the Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Adams thought far too much of future generations, clearly, because a second, competing theory has emerged within the last 100 years which suggests that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege granted by the government, and the kinds of firearms allowed to peaceable citizens depends on what neighbors and government agents would deem allowable at any particular point in time.

The latter is entirely incoherent when contextualized with the words the Second Amendment, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s the position that is broadly recognized as truth for most Americans. Today, it’s just natural to assume that the federal government has the right to curtail gun ownership of this gun or that one among “peaceable citizens” if the federal government feels that some guns are too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to own.

This is the progressives’ magic trick, and some Americans fall for it due to a simple deficiency in human nature. For example, Chris Cuomo of CNN recently tweeted that “[t]here was no individual right” in the Second Amendment even “contemplated” until Antonin Scalia inferred the “individual right” in the Heller v. District of Columbia decision.

Winston Churchill once observed the reason why Chris Cuomo would say something so patently stupid, and why such stupidity might so commonly be...

The Cure to America's Obesity Problem: Unionized Government Farms.

It is time that America gets serious about the Obesity problem and socializes all farms, unionizes the employees and begins to thin the American population.

New Farming technique to reduce the over-abundance

America is facing an obesity epidemic of epic proportions.  Obesity is a severe health problem that leads to Heart Disease, Diabetes and many more debilitating problems and conditions. Fortunately there is an answer that will solve this problem within 5 years: Unionized Government Farms.

A New Government Farm to solve Obesity.

Americas private farm system has created the problem of an over-abundance of food.  Mountains of food are produced, way more than Americans can ever eat, unfortunately too many of us die trying.  What is the cost to the valiant Americans that try to solve the over abundance of food that the private farm system is creating?  Obesity. 



Benefits of a Unionized Government Farm System:
  1.  Obesity Cured - the over abundance of food problem will be solved.

  2.  Increased Employment - Farms will need more specialized union employees, for instance:         reaping and sowing will now need two employees instead of one.
  3.  Less TV Time - Couch Potatoes beware! Your couch time will now be filled with healthier waiting in line time for the weekly food allotment.
  4.  Government and Union quality - Government IS the solution to all our problems, the innovation and forward thinking of Government Bureaucrats help to improve the quality of your life.  You are welcome.
  5.  Proper Farm Management - Smaller crops and smaller yields will make Americans thin again and compliant to the Government Food Givers.  People guilty of thoughtcrime will simply be allotted smaller portions.  Thought burns calories, disallowing the deviant mind calories stimulates the conformity of obeyance.

Next Article:  How Unionized Government Farms will solve the Squirrel Population Problem.

More Satire:

Man in Coma for 19 Years Asks to Go Back to Sleep

Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott Endangers The World By Firing Climate Scientists In His Country

Iron Man: The Ultimate Capitalist Fantasy

It is a rare occurrence when Hollywood produces a film that neither glorifies the welfare-warfare state, nor vilifies capitalists and businessmen. Yet that is exactly what Marvel Studios has managed with the Iron Man series. In the character of Tony Stark we see the pinnacle of the capitalist fantasy: an ingenious businessman who values property rights and self-defense, and who does not compromise those fundamental rights in the face of government intimidation and force.

Iron Man is the ultimate superhero for the advocates of the free market.

Intellectual Property

In the second film in the series, Tony Stark is forced to appear before a Senate committee seeking to confiscate the Iron Man suit for the sake of national security. Stark rejects the edicts of the government, walking out on the committee while claiming to have “privatized world peace” (more on that later).

The character of Tony Stark is an intractable opponent of government overreach. He demands that he be left alone with his own invention, without the meddling of the state. The beauty of the film is that it creates a remarkably sympathetic portrayal of Stark’s position, something very rarely done in films of this kind. It is a testament to Marvel’s willingness to push boundaries that they would approve a storyline that tears down the government and the misguided notion that property rights are optional when the government is involved.

The power of the free market is further defended in the film by comparing Tony Stark’s Iron Man technology to the government subsidized Hammer Industries. Hammer’s armor is buggy, grotesque, and ineffective. The comparison between it and Stark’s Iron Man armor offers a potent parable on the wastefulness and worthlessness of government intervention into business.

Armed Society, Free Society

Iron Man does not blanch from the twin topics of the right to bear arms and the disparity of arms between citizens and government. On the issue of armament itself, the films are unequivocally in favor of people’s right to defend themselves with weapons. The Iron Man suit represents the ultimate advancement of individual protective and defensive technology: virtually indestructible and capable of going toe-to-toe with most conventional military forces and equipment. It is that access to a new kind of “great equalizer” that will usher in the era of privatized world peace of which Stark speaks.

Imagine a world in which the government is unable to enact its will through force and physical coercion, a world in which all citizens have the capacity to defend themselves from ...

Here’s Why Authors, Theologians Think Pope Francis Cooperates With the Chinese Government Despite Persecution of Religious Groups

Pope Francis caused widespread confusion among Catholics when he agreed to recognize bishops appointed by the authoritarian Chinese government in 2018. Over a year later, the pope keeps silent as China continues religious persecution, imprisons priests, and destroys Muslim graveyards.

Catholic authors and theologians provided the Daily Caller News Foundation with a variety of reasons on why Pope Francis keeps silent on Chinese persecution, and why the pope aligned the Catholic Church with the Chinese government in the first place.

“Francis continually denounces Western countries for any efforts at border control, but stays silent on China’s genocide against the Uighur Muslims; on its persecution of Christians; on its escalating crackdown on Hong Kong,” author John Zmirak, who writes about Catholic-related topics, told the DCNF. “Is this a replay of the Hollywood studios that vetoed anti-Hitler movies, for fear of losing business in Germany? Or is it darker? Is what we’re seeing more like the Soviet Union’s stifling of anti-fascist rhetoric after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939?”

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin pushed Francis’s September 2018 deal with the Chinese government, an agreement ending a decade-long power struggle between the Chinese government and the Catholic Church on whether the Chinese government has the power to appoint Catholic bishops. Under the conditions of the deal, Pope Francis recognized the legitimacy of seven bishops selected and appointed by the authoritarian Chinese government.

But this same Chinese government appointing bishops also persecuted Christians for decades, particularly after Communists took control of China in 1949. Led by Catholic bishops appointed by past popes, Chinese Catholics have practiced their faith through underground churches to avoid arrest.

The Chinese government continues to harass, detain, and arrest Chinese Catholics. As recently as Dec. 30, 2019, a Chinese court sentenced a priest to nine years in prison after the priest called the Chinese Communist Party...

Democrats’ Demands For ‘Equity’ Are Really A Demand To Amp Up Government Discrimination

'Equity' is the buzzword of the new constitution trying to strangle the old one. It holds that government must treat Americans differently according to identity politics categories.

Keep your eye on the word “equity,” for it is going to be an important part of your life in the next four years. Not interested? That doesn’t matter; equity has an interest in you.

Still not concerned? If you are affected by the taxes, laws, and regulations passed and implemented by the legislative and executive branches of government, or by the court decisions handed down by the judicial one, then you will be affected.

Or if you are affected by the everyday interpretations of any laws and regulations made by the unelected and un-enumerated branch of government, the permanent bureaucracy (where most power now resides), then you will be affected by “equity.”

If you read the news or are written about by a pompous fourth estate that now sees itself as the stenographers of Big Government and technocratic administration, then you will be affected by ubiquitous “equity.” So, yes, all 330 million Americans are likely to see “equity” enter their lives.

Even if I have your attention now, you may be tempted to say, OK, fine, but isn’t equity just the same as equality, just more modern-sounding? No. Do not confuse the two. They are not even cousins; they are opposites, or better yet, sworn enemies.

Equality is the standard of our old Constitution, the one framed in 1787 and amended since then, most memorably in the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments. It holds that government should see all people as having been created equal, and equally deserving of the law’s protection.


It is a standard we have not always upheld, but when we have officially deviated from it—as in with slavery or legal segregation—we have paid an awful price. Indeed, at those moments we fixed these great injustices, it was because men like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King came along and demanded enforcement of equality.

Equity is the buzzword of the new constitution trying to take the place of the old one. It holds that government must treat Americans differently according to what category the government has put us in. So equity literally holds that government must treat people un-equally.

Don’t believe me? You don’t want to trust a conservative like me to define a concept of the woke left? Completely understandable. So let’s instead listen to how Vice President Kamala Harris has described the difference between the two, as she did in a tweet on Nov. 1:

Oath Keepers Verdict: A Dangerous Escalation in Criminalizing Dissent

New ground is set with every egregious indictment and conviction with dire consequences for the future of political speech and activity.

One year after the events of January 6—despite their best efforts—federal prosecutors still hadn’t filed a single criminal charge that came anything close to resembling “insurrection” or domestic terrorism. Democrats and regime media were agitated: How could they continue promoting the four-hour disturbance as an attempted coup if the most prevalent offense charged by the Department of Justice a year later was the petty misdemeanor of “parading” in the Capitol? Even the chief judge for the D.C. district court overseeing each January 6 case had publicly expressed her frustration that the government wasn’t producing harsher indictments against Trump supporters.

So Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, swooped in to save face. Eleven members of the Oath Keepers, an alleged militia group, were charged on January 12, 2022 with seditious conspiracy for their involvement in the Capitol protest. Elmer “Stewart” Rhodes and 10 others were accused of conspiring “to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States, and by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The law the Oath Keepers attempted to stop, Graves claimed, was the “peaceful transfer of power” vested in both the 12th and 20th amendments.

The indictment was preposterous on its face, something only a grand jury seated in the most Democratic city in the country could countenance. None faced a weapons charge, raising the natural question of how a group of military veterans, most suffering various degrees of service-related disabilities, planned to overtake the government “by force” without a single firearm or explosive device. Despite constant talk in the media about the Oath Keepers’ quick reaction force, individuals who brought weapons with them on the drive to Washington left them behind in a Virginia hotel—legally—so as to not violate the city’s strict gun control laws.

Some militia.

Only one man, Joshua James, was accused of assaulting police in a heated confrontation with officers that afternoon. (He later pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy after the government moved to take away his military benefits—James was nearly killed by a roadside bomb in Bagdad in 2007 at age 19, suffers lifelong injuries, and was awarded a Purple Heart—and threatened the father of three young children with life in prison if convicted.)

Two groups of Oath Keepers, described as “stacks” by prosecutors, entered the Capitol about 30 minutes after the building had been evacuated; the first group walked through doors that were opened from the inside on the east side. The second group entered shortly after 3 p.m. and exited a short time later.

Over a seven-week trial for the first five defendants, which started in September, prosecutors presented evidence of inflammatory chats featuring military-style bravado and condemnations of a stolen presidential election. Jurors watched a repetitive loop of videos showing three of the defendants entering the Capitol as well as screenshots of selfies taken inside the Rotunda. Jessica Watkins, a transgender Oath Keepers member from Ohio, was heard on an encrypted audio channel bragging about “sticking to the plan” before she and others entered the building. But far from acting as “insurrectionists” or terrorists, Oath Keepers viewed themselves as “backups” for law enforcement, available in case Antifa or Black Lives Matter rioters caused trouble as they had for months in Washington during the second half of 2020.

And witness after witness, including those for the government, admitted the defendants did not plan in advance to “storm” the Capitol. No matter—prosecutors argued that the accused could have entered into the “conspiracy” at any time, including moments before they walked inside the Capitol, and that the agreement didn’t require any specificity or overt consent. “The government also does not have to prove that all members of the conspiracy directly met, or discussed between themselves their unlawful objectives, or agreed to all the details, or agreed to what the means were by which the objectives would be accomplished,” the final jury instructions read. “What the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that two or more persons in some way or manner arrived at some type of agreement, mutual understanding, or meeting of the minds to try to accomplish a common and unlawful objective.”

Jurors did not hear, however, from numerous FBI informants including the group’s vice president, who suffered a medical emergency as he boarded a plane for D.C. to testify. Judge Amit Mehta also refused to allow the jury to hear expert testimony and evidence of “agents provocateurs” located outside the east side of the building near the Oath Keepers yet remain unidentified and uncharged to this day.

Defense witnesses who saw the defendants act as a barrier between unruly protesters and law enforcement, including Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn who took the stand for the prosecution during the trial, were prevented from testifying.

But the vagueness of the law’s language, the piecemeal body of evidence, and Judge Mehta’s obvious preference for the government’s case teed up the inevitable outcome: two men, Rhodes, who never went inside the Capitol on January 6, and Kelly Meggs, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, the first Americans ever convicted of the exceptionally rare crime. (The last time the Justice Department brought seditious conspiracy charges against U.S. citizens in 2010, a federal judge tossed the case out of court.) Three others were acquitted of the charge. All five were found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, a post-Enron statute intended to prevent tampering with evidence during a congressional investigation not interrupting a government function.

The verdicts, cheered by the media and the regime, will serve as an accelerant in the Justice Department’s bastardization of arcane (seditious conspiracy) and inapplicable (obstruction of an official proceeding) laws to criminalize political dissent in the wake of January 6. An act of sedition no longer requires proof of an elaborate plan engineered months if not years in advance, the use of heavy weaponry, and attempts to injure or kill lawmakers or law enforcement officials to take over government functions. All it requires is some heated rhetoric on social media or in private group chats coupled with a nonviolent entry into a public building.

“The most punishing aspect of the Kelly Meggs conviction is the fact he walked through an open door with no resistance from law enforcement and stayed inside the Capitol for 17 minutes where he led a prayer with other Oath Keepers in the Rotunda,” investigative journalist Steve Baker, who covered each day of the trial, told American Greatness on Thursday. “Then he walked to the stairwell where he diffused a potentially disastrous situation with Officer Dunn.” (Dunn, carrying an M-4 rifle, also had to be calmed down by a supervisor that afternoon.)

“Ninety percent of the government’s case relied on scary words, and Kelly Meggs definitely had some scary words,” Baker said. “But now he faces up to 86 years in prison.”

Baker said prosecutors had “all the resources to present this slick, fast, audio visual of interspersing slides and recordings taken out of context” to persuade the jury. But looking at the mixed verdicts of guilty and not guilty, Baker said, “makes no sense.”

It makes sense, of course, in terms of bolstering the phony, empty narrative that Trump supporters are domestic terrorists and that January 6 was a near-coup incited by the former president. Justice Department officials took turns commending themselves for a job well done. “As this case shows, breaking the law in an attempt to undermine the functioning of American democracy will not be tolerated,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a press release issued shortly after the verdicts were read. “The FBI will always uphold the rights of all citizens who peacefully engage in First Amendment protected activities, but we and our partners will continue to hold accountable those who engaged in...

Justice Department Designates Obstruction as an Act of Terror In yet another example of the double-standard of justice from this vengeful regime, Trump supporters are trapped in a legal circle of hell in the nation’s capital.

To hear federal prosecutors tell it, Guy Wesley Reffitt almost single-handedly organized and led a bloodthirsty mob to overtake Congress on January 6, 2021.

One of the first protesters arrested in the Justice Department’s “shock and awe” dragnet of Donald Trump supporters, Reffitt was immediately indicted on numerous offenses. He spent more than a year in the D.C. gulag set aside for Americans who protested Joe Biden’s election under pretrial detention orders sought by the Justice Department—and he was the first January 6 defendant to stand trial in a city that voted nearly 93 percent for Biden in 2020.

In a matter of a few hours in March, 12 residents of the nation’s capital—not only one of the most lopsidedly Democratic cities in the country but one whose residents view the events of January 6 as an intrusion of their private fiefdom—found Reffitt guilty on all charges: two counts of civil disorder, two counts of obstruction, and one count of carrying a handgun on restricted grounds. (Prosecutors came up with the firearms charges months after he was initially indicted, claiming a holster he wore that day contained a semi-automatic handgun.)

Without question, Reffitt engaged in bad behavior that afternoon; he recorded himself making derogatory comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) before confronting Capitol police on the steps outside the building. The government’s most incriminating evidence in the case came from Reffitt’s teenage son, who secretly taped conversations with his father a few days after Reffitt returned to their Texas home, which the FBI raided on January 16, 2021. (I wrote about the case here.)

But Reffitt’s misconduct doesn’t come close to the overdramatic if not wholly dishonest account described in a 58-page sentencing recommendation the Justice Department filed last week. And it does not make him, or others in similar circumstances, part of a domestic terrorism plot as the Biden regime now insists.

Despite the fact Reffitt traveled to D.C. with only one other person and never entered the building, Jeffery Nestler, the federal prosecutor handling the case, repeatedly alleged that Reffitt played a “central role in leading a mob that attacked the United States Capitol.” Rather than show remorse for his action, Nestler wrote, “Reffitt returned home to Texas on January 8, triumphant about the integral role he played in the attack on our democracy.”

For several pages, Nestler portrays Reffitt as a dangerous militia leader who used his influence to initiate a violent assault against lawmakers that afternoon. “Reffitt did not intend to simply obstruct Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote. Rather, Reffitt intended to physically remove the legislators from the building (using his firearm and flexicuffs, and the power of the crowd) and actually ‘take over’ Congress,” Nestler wrote. (Reffitt’s companion, an alleged militia member, was not charged for similar conduct after he agreed to cooperate with the government.)

Reffitt, however, wasn’t convicted of attempting to kidnap members of Congress or seize the Capitol building. He didn’t build a weapon of mass destruction, torch federal property, or plot to kill government leaders—crimes that are normally associated under the law with acts of terrorism. Prosecutors didn’t convince jurors that Reffitt was a self-styled American jihadist who developed elaborate plans to overthrow the U.S. government on January 6.

But that is precisely what the Justice Department now wants a federal judge to conclude—and punish Reffitt accordingly.

Nestler and his boss, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, are seeking a 15-year prison sentence based in part on a terrorism enhancement provision in federal sentencing guidelines. And the alleged crime of terrorism? The vague “obstruction of an official proceeding” felony is a post-Enron law intended to prevent evidence tampering that has been bastardized by Biden’s Justice Department to criminalize political protest in America.

“The Court should depart upward under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 (“Terrorism”), because Reffitt’s conviction—for obstructing Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote ‘was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct,’” Nestler argued, citing requirements under sentencing guidelines to support additional jail time. (“[T]he terrorism enhancement is applicable where a defendant acts according to a plan—whether developed over a long period of time or developed in a span of seconds—with the object of influencing government conduct or retaliating against a government.”

Now, most Americans who aren’t brainwashed members of the national news media or Democratic Party consider attempts to influence the government a fundamental constitutional right. The notion that protesting any public body, especially Congress, makes one a “domestic terrorist” if the protest gets out of hand isn’t just absurd; it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Which is precisely what this Justice Department wants to do.

Further, nothing Reffitt did on January 6 came close to the organized, violent rioting that was intended to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Nor did it approach the weeks of protests, which included the occupation of Capitol buildings, breach of police lines, and threats to sitting members of Congress, related to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. And of course, Reffitt was not involved in riots coordinated by powerful, monied activist groups following the death of George Floyd in 2020, violence that actually terrorized the American people for months, causing numerous fatalities and at least $2 billion in property damages.

None of those events has been cited as examples of “domestic terror” by this regime—but FBI Director Christopher Wray officially designated January 6, a four-hour disturbance that resulted in the deaths of four Trump supporters, an act of domestic terror. Wray’s proclamation, made under oath to a Congressional committee in March 2021, gave prosecutors, judges, and the media all the ammunition they needed to...

4 Big Threats Pence Says China Poses to US

The Chinese have attempted to spy on some 30 U.S. companies, the White House says, also warning that Beijing is meddling with U.S. elections.

Those are among the reasons Vice President Mike Pence amplified the Trump administration’s assertion that it will no longer play nice with the Chinese communist regime.

“Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States,” Pence said Thursday, speaking at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

While much of the media coverage of Pence’s remarks focused on election meddling, the vice president also discussed cybersecurity and Beijing’s increasing militarism, and called for American companies to be on guard in dealing with China.


Here are four key threats Chinese policies pose to the U.S., according to the vice president.

1. Cyber-espionage

Chinese spies found vulnerabilities in the U.S. technology supply chain to infiltrate computer networks of nearly 30 U.S. companies, including Apple and Amazon, as well as banks and federal contractors, Bloomberg Businessweek first reported Thursday, the same day Pence took China to task.

The federal contractors included companies that have worked with the Central Intelligence Agency and with the International Space Station.

Microchips, about the size of a grain of sand, were inserted into the manufacturing of equipment in China of Super Micro Computer Inc., which is a server supplier for several major companies in the United States.

Investigators determined the chips allowed attackers to create backdoor entry to alter computers. However, Amazon, Apple, Super Micro itself and the Chinese government all disputed the Bloomberg reporting.

“This is a backdoor into the hardware level in determining personal identification, health care records, and possibly even voting machines,” Dean Cheng, research fellow on Chinese political and security affairs at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“If the chip story is true, there is something fundamentally wrong with our supply chain,” he added.

Cheng contends these cybersecurity concerns are far weightier than concerns about election interference and spreading propaganda.

The White House National Security Council referred to President Donald Trump’s National Cyber Strategy released on Sept. 20. The strategy focuses on securing federal networks and the nation’s critical infrastructure and on combating cybercrime and improving incident reporting.

“We’ve taken action to authorize increased capability in the cyber world to build deterrence against our adversaries,” Pence said in his Hudson Institute remarks. He noted that had particular relevance to the host venue.

“After you offered to host a speaker Beijing didn’t like, your website suffered a major cyberattack, originating from Shanghai,” Pence said. “The Hudson Institute knows better than most that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to undermine academic freedom and the freedom of speech in America today.”

2. Election Meddling

China is pushing a propaganda war in the United States, with an eye on both the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential election, Pence said, regarding Chinese election meddling.

“There can be no doubt: China is meddling in America’s democracy,” he said.

He noted that the U.S. intelligence community says that China “is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy.”

“It’s using wedge issues, like trade tariffs, to advance Beijing’s political influence,” he said.

“When it comes to influencing the midterms, you need only look at Beijing’s tariffs in response to ours,” Pence added. “The tariffs imposed by China to date specifically targeted industries and states that would play an important role in the 2018 election.

“By one estimate, more than 80 percent of U.S. counties targeted by China voted for President Trump and I in 2016. Now, China wants to turn these voters against our administration,” he said.

One example is in the battleground state of Iowa, Pence said:

Last week, the Chinese government paid to have a multipage supplement inserted into the Des Moines Register—the paper of record of the home state of our ambassador to China and a pivotal state in 2018 and 2020. The supplement, designed to look like the news articles, cast our trade policies as reckless and harmful to Iowans.

The United States is limited in its ability to stop China’s propaganda, Cheng said.

“If the argument is that hackers are somehow rewriting stories, or the government is buying off reporters, that would be different, but that’s not the case,” Cheng said. “We have a free press, and anyone can run an ad. So does Saudi Arabia, and so have Europeans. This is not unique to China.

“The focus is misplaced on election manipulations,” he added. “The electoral stuff gets the attention, but there are far more important issues.”

The White House National Security Council referred to Trump’s announcement from Aug. 2 about a new federal government-wide initiative to help state and local authorities bolster their defenses against cyberattacks targeting our elections.

3. Squeezing U.S. Companies

Pence called out Google for its seeming willingness to work with the Chinese government.

“Google should immediately end development of the ‘Dragonfly’ app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers,” he said in his Thursday speech.

Pence also noted that Chinese officials tried to influence business leaders.

“In one recent example, China threatened to deny a business license for a major U.S. corporation if they refused to speak out against our administration’s policies,” Pence said.

However, Pence also said more companies are taking a firmer stance against doing business in China.

As we gather here, a new consensus is rising across America. More business leaders are thinking beyond the next quarter, and thinking twice before diving into the Chinese market if it means turning over their intellectual property or abetting Beijing’s oppression.

Google should employ “truth in advertising,” Cheng said. The company is considering working with China in a way that would censor information negative to the government, and also allow the government to monitor searches.

By contrast, Google has previously declined to renew its contract with the U.S. Defense Department.

Cheng cited the corporation’s one-time motto “Don’t be evil.”

“Google will have to explain their decision,” he said. “Does evil equal working with the U.S. government and evil is not equal to working with the Chinese government?”

4. Military Buildup

The vice president also warned of China’s military buildup.

“China now spends as much on its military as the rest of Asia combined, and Beijing has prioritized capabilities to erode America’s military advantages on land, at sea, in the air, and in space,” Pence said.

China wants nothing less than to push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from...