Profile image
By Voice of Reason
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Changes at Obama’s Pentagon Include Soldiers’ Ability to Kill Journalists (Video)

Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:53
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

War Manual

By: Voice of Reason







In the first video below, DAHBOO777 gives you an introduction to Obama’s newly re-written 2015 Edition of the United States War Manual. I’ll cut to the chase: The new version makes It much easier for soldiers to be able to defend killing JOURNALISTS! I’m sure some of the naive folks out there are scratching their heads asking, “Why would Obama want to kill journalists?” NEWS FLASH: He wants to kill bloggers and citizen journalists, and I will prove it. 

Do you recall what the architect of the Obamacare Bill, Jonathan Gruber, said when he didn’t think anyone was paying attention? Referring to American voters (and the die hard Obama supporters I might add), Gruber said, “call it the STUPIDITY of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass…”

Allow me to summarize that for you. Said another way, “Thanks to the public schools that have become nothing more than liberal indoctrination centers, and a mainstream media that doesn’t dare challenge the Democrat Party, American voters have absolutely zero facts about anything these days, so they’ll fall for whatever you tell them, and they’ll laugh and point fingers at those who DO know the facts.” First, listen to the video, and let DAHBOO777 send chills up your spine. Then, after the video, I will cite everything I say, so you don’t have to take my word when I tell you what Obama’s plans are. They are in writing, and they are scary as hell…

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Depending on how many of us survive, and who writes the history books, Obama will be remembered as the dirtiest President in U.S. history. There’s not even a contest. What you are about to read is going to floor you. I’m sorry. 

For anyone wondering why Obama would want to kill journalists, remember what I said: Obama wants to kill citizen journalists, bloggers, or anyone he cannot have some form of direct control over whatever they are writing. Why? Because Obama likes to lie… a lot… and “journalists” in the media don’t fact check or question him. The rest of us with IQ’s over 6 do, and he does NOT like getting caught lying. 

After having to commit numerous counts of voter fraud at many different levels to just barely eek out a win against Mitt Romney, Obama attempted to get to work fast with shutting down free speech. Before I get into the silencing free speech, just so there is no confusion, United States Code for Coercion of Political Activity (18 U.S.C.§610 Coercion of political activity) reads: 

It shall be unlawful for any person to INTIMIDATE, (I.R.S., TEA PARTY, COUGH!) threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Ok, I’m no tax lawyer, but that seems pretty cut and dry. Even if I do have the wrong code section specified, there is no doubt that what the IRS did with the full knowledge and authorization (we already know this) of Obama’s Chief Counsel, Obama should be in prison for some type of felony voter fraud, but let’s get back to Obama’s assault on Free Speech. 

In September of 2013, with the Senate under the control of Dingy Harry Reid, Democrats tried to ram through a bill taking away free speech from EVERYONE except “professional reporters.” Democrats, with Diane Feinstein leading the charge, thought they should be the ones to determine who was allowed to say what in America. That was all well documented by Truth in Media which wrote:

Of course the real story here centers around Senator Dianne Feinstein who has for weeks insisted that the committee must create and limit a definition for the title of “reporter”. Feinstein says that she cannot support everyone who has a blog with “special privilege”, going on to say “If Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have privilege. I’m not going to go there.”

Notice attempt one at the Democrats trying to re-write definitions for words to suit their own agenda. Thankfully that bill died, but there were many more attempts after that, and there were even some partial successes as the links below indicate. It wasn’t until September of 2014, with the fear of a midterm shellacking looming large over the Democrats, that Dingy Harry and the Democrats had the nerve to attempt a backdoor repeal the First Amendment for lack of a better way to put it. To quote an article in National Review:

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Dissent is the lowest form of crime. If you are a drone in the hive of the Left, it is possible — easy, in fact — to believe both of those things at the same time.

Which is why Harry Reid wants to repeal the First Amendment.”

When that bill failed, Democrats tried AGAIN in October to pass a bill giving them the right to regulate “Conservative Websites.” There is an excellent article in Breitbart on that whole fiasco. When all of that failed, Obama decided to kick things up a notch. He figured another way to silence the opposition was to re-write the Army manual giving U.S. soldiers the duty to fire on unarmed civilians if called upon to do so, for doing no more than peacefully protesting. You think I’m kidding? 

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Dave Hodges of the Common Sense Show points very specifically to the code I just mentioned. There is no “CONSPIRACY THEORY” here, this is the UNITED STATES CODE!

On the surface, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) act should prevent the Army from deploying the troops in the midst of a protest that is not on the scale of something like the 1992 LA Riots. However, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas. 

10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.

10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.

10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.

House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.

With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military.  However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.

In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public  because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate.

In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase “…conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document. If 10 USC 333 is applied to the letter of the written Army policy, the protesters who recently objected to illegal aliens being deposited in Murietta, California, could be subject to deadly force.

My personal favorite is the party about peaceful protestors protesting the government can be ventilated: 

“An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public  because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate.”

Yell “Conspiracy Theorist” all you want. The actual law can be read with your own two eyes in the Unites States Code… LOOK IT UP! (10 U.S. Code § 332)


I’m Sorry, Conspiracy What?

You don’t really think it ends there do you? In my post titled, Memo Outlines Obama’s Plan to Use the Military Against Citizens, I point to a Washington Times Report: that says:

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

So, Obama has taken it upon himself that droning U.S. citizens is fair game if he has to. What a guy. I can feel all the “Hope and Change” oozing out of me, can’t you? FINALLY, check out this video about the “Obama Memo” detailing his plans to use force against American Citizens, then afterward is the rest of the information on killing journalists. 

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page


Update to US War Manual Makes it Easier to Defend Killing Journalists


Washington’s blog writes: The US has always been a deadly force for journalists.  The US invasion of Iraq launched in 2003, for example, as Al Jazeera reports, is the single “deadliest war for journalists” ever waged: “More journalists were killed during the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq than in any war in history.”

Now, as US and EU officials and propagandists regularly denounce the journalism of outlets they don’t like (ie ones that debunk Western propaganda), and the US positions tanks, artillerytrainers, and other equipment and hostile forces on Russia’s border, the US is further muddying its official definition of “journalist”.

Under the Bush Jr. regime, a phrase with no occurrence or standing in law was invented as an “excuse” to illegally violate the Geneva Convention and use outlawed treatment, such as execution, torture, military instead of civilian courts, and indefinite imprisonment, on whomever the US wanted, including journalists.  That phrase was “unlawful combatant”.  (The perpetrators of crimes “excused” by the phrase are all being protected by Obama.)

Under the Obama regime, the made up phrase is being replaced by the Pentagon with a new one that is even broader and more vague: “unprivileged belligerent”.  This is different from the previous term in that it does not specify any relation to law, but rather to a notion of “privilege”.  Likewise, it conveys no direct relation to combat, but rather simply to “belligerence”.

Obama is already infamous for creating false definitions for words and terms to cover major crimes, such as executions of thousands of suspects and civilians (see: 123).

And the new war-conduct manual directly links the new vague and highly exploitable phrase, “unprivileged belligerent”, to journalists, stating:

“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.”

A Telesur News analyst notes that “The classification of journalists as ‘unprivileged belligerents’ is leading experts to conclude that the U.S. Department of Defense has given the green light for soldiers to kill journalists.”  The classification could also be used to justify the continuation and/or extension of other types of illegal treatment of journalists, such as torture or indefinite imprisonment, which the US practices.

In response, the Pentagon assured media that this was not the case (what else would it say?).

Obama is known as particularly hostile towards informational awareness and the press, having persecuted more whistle-blowers than all previous presidents combined, and having carried out other actions such as classifying journalists as terrorists, having journalists imprisoned without trial, and aiding armed groups, such as the post-coup regime in Kiev, as they purge and murder journalists en masse.

While the new manual does not necessarily represent the stance of the US government as a whole, it applies to the armed wings and could be cited by anyone, as Telesur notes, including foreign actors, as justification for continued crimes.


Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page


Pentagon Releases “War Manual” Claiming Authority to Potentially Murder Journalists they Don’t Like


The Free Thought Project writes: Washington, D.C. – A new Pentagon legal guide, the “Department of Defense Law of War Manual,” which encompasses the legalities of war for all four branches of the U.S. military, explains legally acceptable methods of killing opposing soldiers.

Shockingly, the manual also notes that journalists can now be labeled “unprivileged belligerents,” a term that replaces “enemy combatant.”

The “Law of War Manual” details acceptable means of killing to include cutting, stabbing, bombing, exploding and shooting the enemy, while the use of poisons or suffocating gasses are strictly prohibited.

Surprisingly, the killing of troops that are retreating was deemed legally acceptable.

Perhaps the most troubling section of the manual relates to the manner in which journalists are treated in a designated war zone.

“In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents,” the “Law of War Manual” asserts.

This new term, “unprivileged belligerents” is now used in the stead of “unlawful enemy combatant,” a catch all Bush-era term which essentially referred to any male over the age 16 in a designated war zone.

Ambiguous terms such as these are meant to provide legal cover, so that the U.S. military can essentially kill innocent people, without facing any legal repercussions.

In an interview with RT, Georgetown Journalism professor Chris Chambers explained why using these terms seemingly provide legal cover, explaining that the reason is “because the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.”

This will result in journalists embedded with military units, who are already forced to abide by strict protocols censoring what they can show or report on, following the preferred military narrative even closer.

“It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side,” Chambers said.

The Pentagon failed to detail the specific circumstances under which a journalist would be declared an unprivileged belligerent, but Chambers says he is sure “their legal department is going over it, as is the National Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists.”

One cannot mistake the government’s intent to tighten the control of the flow of information from the battlefield to the public at large, which raises some very troubling questions.

If wars are being fought in a just and forthright manner than what is there to be hidden from the public whose name in which you fight?

One thing is certain; when journalists are targeted, the truth dies!

Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on and You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.



By: Voice of Reason





Jade Chopper


Martial Law







Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.