#BigOil Now Has Authority to Arrest You for Protesting a Pipeline on Your OWN Property | #PoliceState

pipeline
Source: FreeThoughtProject.com
Claire Bernish
May 1, 2017

If you’re a resident of Huntingdon County unfortunate enough to have your property in the path of Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 pipeline, you can forget protesting — unless arrest and jail time aren’t an issue for you.

Common Pleas Court Judge George Zanic signed a rare and factious “writ of possession” order last week in favor of Sunoco, which had sought an “emergency measure” to thwart landowners protesting pipeline construction by occupying trees — on their own property.

In short, protesting encroachment of this pipeline on one’s own property will earn an arrest.

“We’re seriously looking at going to jail,” Elyse Gerhart told NPR. “I’m not the type of person who lets injustice go unchallenged, and neither is my mother. What we’re doing makes [Sunoco] show their true face.”

NPR’s StateImpact Pennsylvania reports,

“Ellen and Stephen Gerhart in Huntingdon, Pa., along with their daughter Elyse, have become outspoken critics of the pipeline and the use of eminent domain by the company to take possession of land along the 350 mile route.

“Charges against Ellen Gerhart were dropped after she was arrested last year for trespass on her own property. But with this new writ, Sunoco can enlist law enforcement to arrest anyone within the easement, including the actual property owners.”

Sunoco, in no uncertain terms, has garnered the full weight of support via force of the U.S. government against the interests of citizens who have done literally nothing else wrong but have their properties awkwardly situated where Big Oil wants its pipeline to run.

Elyse Gerhart took to the trees in early February with an unknown number of others facing similarly offensive corporate actions, after the unironically monikered Department of Environmental Protection granted permits for Sunoco to begin construction of Mariner East 2.

As the Gerharts’ attempt to stave off the corporo-government’s eminent domain seizure of private property winds its way through courts, Judge Zanic’s order effectively quashes any remnants of effective protest the landowners had at their disposal — rendering moot their objections in favor of Sunoco’s plans to complete its pipeline until court proceedings play out.

Sunoco Logistics, it is imperative to note, completed a long-anticipated merger with Energy Transfer Partners — of Dakota Access Pipeline notoriety — just two days ago.

Given the extreme measures ETP employed against the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and supporting Indigenous and non-Native water protectors from around the globe — who were camped in opposition to DAPL for months near the banks of the Missouri River’s Lake Oahe reservoir — the move to usurp law-abiding civilians’ private property hardly comes as a shock.

Indeed, the pompousness of corporate theft of property under the already-contentious governmental program known as eminent domain seems par for the course for Big Oil — particularly now that industry darling, Donald Trump, occupies the White House.

Occupying treetops on their own properties has already led to the sort of disputatious confrontations, albeit on a smaller scale, which brought international scorn to the Dakota Access Pipeline Project. Although charges were ultimately dropped, authorities arrested Ellen Gerhart last year — for trespassing on her own property.

Attorney Rich Raiders is representing the Gerhart family in its challenge of eminent domain, and noted the court’s use of ‘writ of possession’ is “very rare and very unusual.”

A writ of possession technically allows authorities to seize control of everything you own — giving you and everyone in your household limited time to vacate the premises.

Twenty-seven acres of forests and wetlands comprise the Gerharts property in Huntingdon County, and the family has thus far stood resolute in refusing to voluntarily grant an easement and its 50-foot wide right-of-way with additional 25-foot staging area for the Mariner East line.

In their appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the family argues, in part, Sunoco’s planned liquid natural gas pipeline — “which would carry ethane, propane and butane from the Marcellus Shale to an export terminal in Delaware County” — is not in the public interest.

A common defense against eminent domain, any company arguing for seizure and use of private property normally bears the brunt of proving necessity and public interest — Sunoco, in this instance, claims Mariner East 2 would deliver needed heating oil to parts of Pennsylvania. Mariner East 1, the Gerharts and their attorney rebuff, already supplies what is needed — the second line is redundant and unnecessary.

In an email response to that claim, Sunoco spokesman Jeff Shields asserted the writ of possession holds to the confines of the law, telling StateImpact,

“We are proceeding with construction in Huntingdon County and elsewhere and will conduct ourselves according to the law at all times.”

As with Energy Transfer Partners’ horrendous steamrolling of Native American rights concerning the justifiably maligned Dakota Access Pipeline, that black-and-white simplistic view of Big Oil’s manifest rights hardly comes as a shock — though its might makes right attitude has won no favor with landowners who otherwise couldn’t care less about the exploits of the industry.

This writ of possession and its granting authority to arrest property owners on their own land should they not permit notoriously faulty oil and gas infrastructure to impede in their lives proves yet again the government’s subservience to corporate industry over the rights of people supposedly governed.

No matter Sunoco’s and ETP’s brazen claims to superiority over individual property rights, the argument legality supersedes inalienable rights will never tacitly equate a moral high ground.

And as Big Oil finds new impunity to run roughshod where it sees fit, that legality does not equal morality has never been more clear.

Read More At: TheFreeThoughtProject.com

The Government’s Real War On Natural Health

TruthLies

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 6, 2017

In 1994, after a lifelong aversion to politics, I ran for a seat in the US Congress out of the 29th District in Los Angeles. My platform was Health Freedom.

At the time, the FDA was raiding offices of natural practitioners, and threatening to cut off citizens’ access to a full range of nutritional supplements.

I watched a trial, if you can call it that, in downtown Los Angeles, in which the federal government was prosecuting a young man for selling, and making health claims about, a substance that occurs naturally in the body.

The defendant told the Judge he was prepared to present extensive evidence that the substance was safe and effective. The Judge refused, saying the only issue was: did the defendant violate an FDA rule? If so, he was guilty. At that point, the trial was over, and indeed, the Judge soon pronounced a verdict and the young man was led away to serve a prison sentence in a federal lockup.

At that moment, I began to construct my case against the State, and consider what Health Freedom was all about.

Let’s start here. The FDA, the CDC, and several other federal agencies have blood on their hands. This blood doesn’t wash away. On July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, published a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Starfield concluded that that US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. I subsequently interviewed Starfield (2009), and she told me the US government has never made a significant effort to end this ongoing holocaust.

So, when the government talks about FDA rules governing safety and efficacy of treatments, they should be referring to their own crimes, since, for example, FDA-approved medicines are responsible for roughly half the 2.25 million deaths per decade.

On the other hand, natural health treatments kill virtually no one.

And here is where the situation becomes basic. The decision by a responsible adult, to manage his own health, by his own measure, and to seek out any other person to help him in that regard, is not the business of the State.

The State can license anyone it chooses to, as a health practitioner. Who cares? But there is no exclusive monopoly on healing. There is no monopoly on recovery from illness. There is no monopoly on the quality of a life.

The legal aspect of this is clear: contracts vs. licenses. The State has no Constitutional right to turn its licensing procedures into monopolies. On the other hand, two consenting adults can designate each other “patient” and “healer,” accepting full responsibility, with no future liability attached, for the outcome of their treatment-arrangement (contract).

The State has no Constitutional right to stick its nose into this business.

The State needs to clean up its own act, which is a euphemistic way of saying the State needs to stop killing 2.25 million Americans per decade. Obviously, the government front of “we can’t let people try to heal themselves apart from licensed practitioners, we must protect the people” is a piece of phony propaganda.

It’s a piece of Nanny-Mommy-Daddy State bullshit. This country wasn’t founded on the premise of the government protecting everyone everywhere all the time.

The State has no right to presume it knows, in advance, what will happen when two responsible citizens decide to engage in their own healing contract.

There’s more. If one state in the Union decided to allow this form of responsible contract in the field of healing, people from all over the country would move there—seeking freedom. As a result, the economy of that State would bloom. Other States, seeing this, would follow suit. There would be a genuine Health Freedom revolution…

And the government of the country could focus on…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

1st amendment being destroyed by oil interests – Lionel

Source: RT
November 30, 2016

At least 7 journalists have been arrested while covering Standing Rock and others have been subjected to tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets. ‘News With Ed’ is joined by legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel media to talk about how constitutional rights intersect with the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, a rural department not accustomed to dealing with protest movements.

Book Review: LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy – A Coalescence Of Interests by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

lbjknd
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
November 22, 2016

LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell is a landmark book into the conspiracy/coup d’etat that killed President Kennedy.

The main strength of this book is that it seeks to reverse engineer the threads of evil that wielded their ways in order to carry out one of the greatest conspiracies in modern times.

Without a doubt, this is a landmark book in every sense of the word.

In the nascent stage of this book Farrell makes it a point to lay the foundation for the methodology of the events that took place.  This helps the reader understand the angle he is going to take.

Beyond that, however, Farrell goes above and beyond what any average researcher does.  In his usual methodical, leave-no-stone-unturned fashion, Farrell not only analyzes the coalescence of interests that had a hand in the assassination – FBI, CIA, Banksters, Nazis, Masons, Mafia, Big Oil, The Military, The Secret Service – but further distills these to the deep core nexus that arguably played the most prominent roles in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Farrell, in harpoon-like fashion homes in on the most devious of all public players that played a notable role in the architecture of the conspiracy: Lyndon B. Johnson.

At minimum, the turn-coat and traitor Johnson cast his tentacles all over the official “investigation” derailing the possibility of any semblance of truth from rising to the foreground.

As Farrell notes:

“…it is certainly clear that Johnson, by his policies and behaviors after the assassination, acted as if he knew who was ultimately behind the murder, for at every turn, he acted in their interest as well as his own, in suppressing any evidence tending to incriminate him, or them.  Nowhere more did he do this more clearly than in his selection of those members of the Warren Commission itself.”[1]

What this book does is not only destroy the official story, which admittedly has been done by many other researchers, but also takes it a few steps beyond that into the realm of deeper and darker elements.  Elements that made it a point not only to carry out arguably the conspiracy of the century, but also transformed the consciousness of Americans and infused enough trauma into the social psyche the likes of which western society had not witness in modern times.  Such is the signature of those that slither behind the scenes.

With everything noted, and still so much left unsaid, everyone would be served well to read this book.  The value this book offers not only in understanding what took place that day, but the coup d’etat that took place  will help one understand why we are witnessing many of the issues we are in our society, and why things haven’t changed.  That alone should be reason enough, but the book offers countless more reasons for one to read it, as all of Farrell’s book do.

—————————————————————————————–
Source:

[1] Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, LBJ & The Conspiracy To Kill Kennedy – A Coalescence Of Interests, pg. 285.

Police State – Suppressing reporting: Filmmaker facing 45 yrs in prison for filming pipeline protest speaks to RT

Source: RT
October 25, 2016

Filmmaker Deia Schlosberg was filming activists tampering with a pipeline bringing oil from Canada to the United States when she was arrested and charged with multiple felonies that could send her to prison for up to 45 years. Schlosberg and documentary filmmaker Josh Fox join ‘News with Ed’ to discuss the incident.

What Would Happen If…The Individual Decided To Breakaway?

BreakAway3

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 21, 2016

[Note: All Underlines Are Hyperlinked For Those Seeking Additional Information]

What would happen if everyone stopped funding crooked corporations that throw the population under the bus tomorrow?

What would happen if people took responsibility for their health, rather than hand off that responsibility to the Medical establishment?

What would happen if individuals begun vetting all the information from every single source, rather than take everything at face value?

What would happen if individuals quit supporting corrupt politicians?

What would happen if we quit eating unsafe genetically modified foods, that have never been proven to be safe?  Why do you think they want to keep you from knowing what foods are GMOs?  If genetically modified foods were safe, why aren’t they labeled?  Ever ruminate on that?

What would happen if we just quit giving the system our consent [silence is consent], for every illegal, inhumane and brutal action carried out on the populace?

What would happen if people quit drinking fluoridated water that causes neurological issues and countless others, that just happens to make it easier for people to be controlled, which was why the Russians and Nazis used it?  [For More Info Click Here]

What would happen if people asked what toxic substances were in their food, besides genetically modified foods?

What would happen if people knew that when a label says it’s natural, it’s anything but? [If you want something that is real you need to look for Organic/Non-GMO labels on food packages, not “natural”]

What would happen if people quit running for the cure and people began searching for the cause?  Better yet, what would happen if people took a look at Dr. Burzynski’s work?  [Watch His Documentary Here]   Or have you seen the documentary on Forbidden Cures?   [You Can Watch It Here]

What would happen if individuals knew preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the United States?  Would they still trust the medical system?  [That doesn’t count the many more [1.5 Million a year, every year, at last estimate] that end up getting run over by Big Medica who don’t get killed by these mistakes.]

What would happen if people knew that key vaccine studies to prove vaccines are safe are funded almost entirely by Big Pharma?  That’s called conflict of interest.

What would happen if people knew the CDC covers up vaccine issues, as one of their very own scientists admitted, but which the mainstream media won’t touch?

What would happen if people knew there’s a vaccination reaction system that has paid out billions even though vaccinations are claimed to be ‘safe’?

What would happen if we quit allowing ourselves to be divided and began standing together?

What would happen if people quit taking excuses for answers from those at the top, and began finding – or better yet, creating! – solutions themselves?

What would happen if individuals decided a better world starts with them?

The point of asking those questions is to show that we, whether we like it or not, are the largest component of the system.

If we merely begun acting on everything that is in our best interest, truly our best interest and not in the interest of the corrupt corporations/politicians then everything would begin to change.

Examples of what happens when individuals begin acting in their best interest follow:

Americans Now Spending BILLIONS On Natural Health Remedies Including Superfoods & Homeopathy, While Denouncing Big Pharma’s Failed Medicine

Monsanto’s Profits Drop 25% AGAIN, As Farmers, Individuals Go Organic

As Demand Skyrockets, Thousands Of US Farms Are Going Organic

This New Neighborhood Will Grow Its Own Food, Power Itself & Handle It’s Own Waste

Environmental Group Establishes Training Centers To Educate Farmers About Organic Growing Techniques

Costco Working To Increase The Organic Food Supply In America By Investing In Farm-To-Market Principles On A Massive Scale

Victory!  Judge Closes Industry Loophole, Barring Pesticides From Compost Used In Organic Food Production

Chef Buys Organic Permaculture Farm To Grow His Own Living Pantry

Demand For Organics Shows *No Sign Of Slowing* After Double Digit Growth

How ‘Farmacy Practice, Or Using Food As Medicine, Can Change The World
Farmers Can Receive Grants To Move To Organic Farming

Please note, those are merely a handful of the stories available, and that’s only the change taking place regarding people wanting real food. 

What would happen if…individuals realized they are the solutions to their very problems, and the time to act is now?

Not a Conspiracy: FBI’s Comey Has Been Covering the Clintons’ A**es for Decades


Source: UndergroundReporter.org
James Holbrooks
August 15, 2016

On Thursday, the Daily Caller broke the story that the FBI, who previously refused to recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton amid her email scandal, is now investigating the Clinton Foundation with the support of U.S. attorneys in New York.

The Clinton Foundation’s main offices are in New York, and the move to work with local prosecutors there is a departure from the FBI’s previous, centralized investigations, which coordinated with the Department of Justice.

A senior law enforcement official, who has intimate knowledge of FBI activity, told the Daily Caller that the involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York “would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

New York’s Southern District counts Wall Street within its jurisdiction, and the man who heads that office, Preet Bharara, has built a reputation on targeting big money players awash in fraud and corruption.

Bharara has in the past gone after big banks — such as Citibank and Bank of America — and politicians, like State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Such efforts have garnered him much praise, as highlighted by the Daily Mail:

“Bharara’s pursuit of insider trading cases beginning in 2009 earned him a Time magazine cover and the title of ‘top cop’ to Wall Street.”

The varied and continued data dumps associated with the Clinton email scandal, which have revealed, among other things, deception, coercion, and a pay-to-play scheme involving donors — not to mention an organized attempt by the DNC to sabotage the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders — have severely hampered Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.

After FBI Director James Comey’s press conference on July 5, in which he recommended no charges be filed against Clinton despite her “extremely careless” use of a private email server, many were left wondering if the FBI was, in fact, actively protecting Clinton from prosecution.

This theory would seem to be in question, however, now that the agency is going around the Justice Department and working with a federal attorney with a reputation for taking down corrupt heavyweights. Indeed, it is curious that the FBI would suddenly sidestep the DOJ a month after it effectively let Hillary Clinton off the hook.

Were the FBI’s hands tied by the Justice Department the first time around?

Is the evidence of corruption within the Clinton shadow now simply too great to ignore?

Are questions surrounding Hillary’s health giving the establishment an opportunity to take out a divisive figurehead for good?

Or is James Comey going rogue?

This last question, if ever affirmed, would perhaps be most profound of all. Because Comey’s ties to the Clintons go back decades, and — as we’ll see — it’s a relationship that has had the now-director of the FBI acting as protector of the dynastic family time and time again.                  

THE CLINTONS’ KNIGHT

“Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment.”

It could easily be assumed these words were written in the days following FBI Director James Comey’s decision in July not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton. While claiming the FBI found no intent of wrongdoing, the director nonetheless delivered a scathing assessment of Clinton and her staff’s use of a private email server to transmit classified information.

But the words are, in actuality, from a TIME article published back in March of this year. And they aren’t in reference to the email controversy. They’re addressing a scandal from the 1990s many will likely be familiar with — Whitewater.

Much of the hard truth in the case would become obscured once the Monica Lewinsky distraction was thrown into the mix, but at its heart the Whitewater investigation centered on failed real estate investments by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates.

And because the subject is now so heavily associated with Bill, a blue dress and a cigar, most would be shocked to discover just how close Hillary came to having charges brought against her during the Whitewater inquiry — to the point where a draft for her indictment had been written.

From a July 9 article in the Washington Post:

“As in the email controversy of today, Clinton’s honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct.”

And a young James Comey was one of those investigators. Writes TIME:

“Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee.”

Following law school, Comey had served as clerk for a federal judge before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York — yes, the same office Preet Bharara is, at the urging of Comey’s FBI, now using to go after Clinton — as a prosecutor in 1987. As we’ll see, Comey’s association with the Southern District will prove highly beneficial to the Clintons.

In the end, and not at all surprisingly, no charges were brought against then-President Bill Clinton and his wife for their involvement in the Whitewater affair. Several of their associates were convicted, however, of crimes including fraud, tax evasion, and embezzlement. Fortunately — at least for a handful — Slick Willy managed to slide them a pardon in the last hours of his presidency.

And the issue of pardons brings us to the next chapter in the Clinton-Comey relationship.

THE “KING OF OIL”

Marc Rich was a pioneering oil mogul in the 70s and 80s who, as a boy, escaped the wrath of the Nazis by fleeing Belgium with his family and relocating to the United States. After years in Missouri, the family ended up living in New York, where Rich would learn the ropes of the international commodities game.

He would go on to become the most successful — and notorious — businessman and trader of his time. He was so dominant in his field, in fact, that peers came to call him the “King of Oil.”

Rich was also, according to the federal government of the United States, a criminal who had no qualms about dealing with America’s enemies. Wrote Reuters in 2013 upon Rich’s death at 78:

“To his critics he was a white-collar criminal, a serial sanctions breaker, whom they accused of building a fortune trading with revolutionary Iran, Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, apartheid-era South Africa, Nicolae Ceausescu’s Romania, Fidel Castro’s Cuba and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile.”

In 1983, Rich was indicted on 65 counts of, among other things, tax evasion and racketeering. Facing a potential life sentence in prison, Rich fled to Switzerland. He would remain on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list for years.

Miraculously, however, Rich was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001, on his last day in office — yes, the same day he pardoned his old Whitewater associates.

Described by a New York Times editorial as a “shocking abuse of presidential power,” the pardon is far less miraculous, though, when considering the multifaceted campaign that went into securing it.

Among the more glaringly questionable details surrounding the pardon are the fact that Rich’s ex-wife had donated $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library — as well as thousands more to Bill’s defense fund during the Whitewater hearings — and the allegations that then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder facilitated the pardon using underhanded methods in exchange for promises of becoming Attorney General in an Al Gore administration.

The Justice Department immediately set up an inquiry to look into the Clinton pardons, which numbered 176 in total. Originally, U.S. Attorney for — you guessed it — the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, had been appointed to lead the investigation. White stepped down before the conclusion of the inquiry, however, and was replaced — rather conveniently — by then-U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia James Comey.

As it happens, Comey was one the prosecutors who’d helped successfully convict Marc Rich fifteen years before. So it was with intimate knowledge of Rich’s criminality that Comey would later tell Congress how “stunned” he was by the pardon of the oil magnate.

Despite this — not to mention the overwhelming evidence of bribery and shady dealings regarding the Clinton pardons — Comey nonetheless determined in 2002 that no criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons had occurred.

THE SPOOK

In February of 2002, former United States diplomat Joseph C. Wilson was sent on a CIA-funded trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium. Upon returning to Washington, D.C., Wilson reported to the CIA that there was little evidence that such a transaction took place.

Not surprisingly, Wilson was taken aback upon hearing President Bush say in the 2003 State of the Union Address that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

In response, Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in July of 2003, titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” From that article:

“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

A week after Wilson’s article was published, conservative columnist Robert Novak ran a piece outing Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative and the person who recommended Wilson for the Niger assignment. Novak cited two senior Bush administration staffers as sources of the leak. It would later be revealed that those sources were State Department official Richard Armitage, acting as the primary, and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who confirmed.

There was much speculation at the time that the Bush officials went rogue as revenge for Wilson’s op-ed in which he contradicted the president’s claims. Within months of Novak’s article, the Justice Department had opened an investigation as to who had blown Valerie Plame’s cover.

To avoid the appearance of partiality, Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case — which paved the way for the number two man, James Comey, to step into the top spot.

As a Bush appointee, Comey also desired — seemingly — to avoid the appearance of bias. So, amid calls for an independent investigation, Comey appointed a federal attorney out of Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, to handle the affair.

Fitzgerald, by the way, was a good friend of Comey’s — and godfather to one of his children.

Some viewed the appointment as troubling, but the case proceeded. In the end, no one was charged for the leak, itself. Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, however, who testified during the trial, was convicted of perjury and obstruction.

Libby, who’d been made privy to Plame’s role as a CIA operative by the vice president prior to Novak’s article being published, is thought by another witness in the case, reporter Judith Miller, to have fallen on his sword to protect Cheney.

The whole affair came to be known as “Plamegate.” From a 2007 NBC report, following Libby’s conviction:

“The trial revealed that top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.”

Plame and her husband — who, incidentally, was a Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton in the 90s — have been Clinton supporters for nearly two decades. In an April 2015 op-ed the couple co-authored for USA Today, Plame and Wilson wrote:

“We have known Hillary Clinton both professionally and personally for nearly 20 years, dating back to before President Bill Clinton’s first trip to Africa in 1998 — a trip they both acknowledge changed their lives, and gave considerable meaning to their post-White House years and to the activities of the Clinton Foundation.”

They go on to state that, in the midst of the scandal, “Hillary reached out to us. Her counsel during that tumultuous period was as timely as it was wise.”

A Daily Caller article published in January of this year further highlighted the close ties between the Clintons and Wilson, who, since leaving political life, has worked as an advisor to development groups in Africa. Citing ongoing email dumps, the article states:

“One of Hillary Clinton’s most frequent favor-seekers when she was secretary of state was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a longtime Clinton friend, an endorser of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and an Africa expert with deep business ties to the continent.”

The article goes on to explain that, in most of the cases, Wilson’s requests were met — which amounted to considerable paydays for the former Bill Clinton assistant.

Given these facts, one could be forgiven for finding it odd that James Comey — who’d by then proven himself thoroughly dependable in Clinton-related matters — ended up being the man in charge of the Plamegate investigation. Odder still, one might think, that the godfather of one of Comey’s children was appointed — by Comey himself — to conduct the trial.

Remember, the theory at the time was that the Republican establishment was going after Joseph Wilson because he dared to challenge the word of President Bush. It was retaliation. So it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the staunchly Democratic Clintons — in an equally retaliatory measure — would protect their friend Wilson, and activate the trusted James Comey to do it.

And it worked. Plamegate saw Vice President Dick Cheney lose his chief of staff and longtime ally, “Scooter” Libby.

THE LOYALIST

In July of 2004, the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating former Clinton aide Sandy Berger over allegations he removed and even destroyed classified material from the National Archives while acting as the Clinton administration’s hand-selected official in charge of reviewing documents for the independent commission on 9/11.

Berger, who served as national security advisor to Bill Clinton for all of the president’s second term, was reportedly observed acting in a secretive and highly suspicious manner while in the archives. Wrote CNN in 2004:

“Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.”

The investigation had actually been going on since October of the previous year, but that fact wasn’t made public until days before the commission was set to release its final report — prompting many to speculate the move was political in nature, a way for the Bush administration to avert attention away from the commission’s inevitably damning conclusions.

“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” the campaign of then-presidential hopeful John Kerry said in a statement.

But others had more serious concerns. Some were asking if Berger, the longtime Clinton loyalist, had been sent into the archives not to prevent damaging information about 9/11 from reaching the commission, but rather, to destroy material that could potentially be harmful to the Clinton dynasty down the road.

Such as, say, Hillary Clinton’s attempts at the Oval Office.

In any case, Berger was floated a sweetheart deal by the Justice Department in 2005. For charges that could’ve seen him behind bars, Berger was fined $50,000 and forced to give up his security clearance for three years.

The Deputy Attorney General in charge of that case? James Comey.

“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey told reporters in 2004.

Just not so seriously — as his findings in the current email scandal prove — when they involve a Clinton.

Interestingly, Berger was named an advisor to Hillary in her failed 2008 bid for the White House — a move that, quite understandably, raised a considerable number of eyebrows at the time. Additionally, a State Department email dump in 2015 revealed that Berger was advising then-Secretary of State Clinton — albeit far more secretly — as recently as 2009.

THE CONCLUSION

With data dumps coming fast and furious, and with a new investigation underway, there’s no telling what will be revealed about Hillary Clinton, her network of associates, or the Clinton Foundation in the days ahead. But if the past is any indicator, none of it will be good.

And there’s so much more than emails to consider. The information presented here highlights a pattern of protection given to a political behemoth by a strategically-placed operative. But this is merely one facet of a much larger, and much older, system at play.

Within the last two weeks alone, Underground Reporter has written on both the recent spike in the so-called “Clinton body count” and the revelation that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich may very well be the source behind Wikileaks’ DNC leak — a suggestion made by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that had one Clinton strategist immediately calling for his death.

Consider, for instance, that Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff at the State Department — and who is now under scrutiny for working for the Clinton Foundation, which she’s currently on the board of, while on State Department time — attempted to destroy Clinton-related emails back in 2015. A judge had to issue an order to prevent her from doing so.

Consider that Mills at one time worked for the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, a New York partner of which prepared tax returns for the Clintons. The firm also did patent work for the software company that created email encryption for the very server at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Interestingly, Sandy Berger — the Clinton bag man who destroyed classified documents in the National Archives —worked for years at Hogan & Hartson as well.

Consider also that United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch — who, as it was recently revealed, refused to sanction an investigation into the Clinton Foundation even after three separate FBI field offices made requests —also worked at Hogan & Hartson.

Consider further that the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, which appears to be connected to the Clintons at every turn, was also one of Hillary’s biggest donors in the legal industry during her first bid for the White House.

Consider that it was Lynch, then the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of the New York, who signed off a sweetheart deal for banking giant HSBC, which allowed it to skate with a paltry fine in a massive money-laundering case. And while you’re at it, consider that the Clinton Foundation has received over $81 million in “donations” from HSBC clients.

And consider that months after the HSBC deal was struck by Loretta Lynch, James Comey joined the controversial bank’s board of directors. He would remain there until his appointment as Director of the FBI in 2013 — just in time to prepare for the hurricane that would be the Clinton email scandal.

Consider all these connections — and consider those we can’t yet see.

The FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation into the Clinton Foundation raises many questions, to be sure. But at this point, all the public can really do is speculate. There is, however, one conclusion that can be definitively made.

With the FBI led by a man who has continuously protected the Clintons for nearly two decades going around the DOJ and opening a criminal probe — spearheaded by a man with a reputation for being tough on corrupt elites — into the Clinton Foundation, something, however ambiguous it might be at the moment, has unquestionably changed.

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org


This article (Not a Conspiracy: FBI’s Comey Has Been Covering the Clintons’ A**es for Decades) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to James Holbrooks and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey

Colorado readies for ‘all out war’ as anti-fracking measures advance to ballot

Fracking

Source: NaturalNews.com
Lauren McCauley
August 13, 2016

The government of Colorado has so far managed to quash efforts to halt the spread of fracking in that state, but come November, residents will finally have the chance to overpower the will of politicians and Big Oil and Gas.

(Article by Lauren McCauley, republished from Commondreams.org)

Petitioners on Monday submitted more than 200,000 signatures backing two separate initiatives to amend the Colorado constitution, specifically in regards to the controversial drilling method.

“This is a good day for Colorado, and it’s a good day for democracy,” said Lauren Petrie, Rocky Mountain Region director of Food and Water Watch. “These initiatives will give communities political tools to fend off the oil and gas industry’s effort to convert our neighborhoods to industrial sites. This is a significant moment in the national movement to stem the tide of fracking and natural gas.”

Initiative 78 would establish a 2,500-foot buffer zone protecting homes, hospitals and schools, as well as sensitive areas like playgrounds and drinking water sources, from new oil and gas development. This expands the current mandate of a 500-foot setback from homes and, according to Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development (CREED), is based upon health studies that show increased risks within a half mile of fracked wells and the perimeters of real-life explosion, evacuation, and burn zones.

Colorado regulators say that, if passed, Initiative 78 could effectively halt new oil and gas exploration and production in as much of 90 percent of the state.

Initiative 75 would establish local government control of oil and gas development, authorizing local municipalities “to pass a broad range of more protective regulations, prohibitions, limits or moratoriums on oil and gas development—or not,” according to the grassroots group.

This measure challenges a May ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court which said that state law overrides local fracking bans.

Various moratoriums or anti-fracking measures bans have been passed by the communities of Lafeyette, Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield, El Paso County, and Longmont—though many of these efforts were quashed by the Supreme Court ruling. Campaigners are hopeful that the initiatives would lay the foundation for many more.

Colorado’s Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, an infamous proponent of fracking, has voiced his strong disapproval of the ordinances.

The signature deadline was met Monday despite the fact that the citizen volunteers faced harassment and, as Common Dreams previously reported, a massive, industry-funded opposition campaign which included deceptive television ads telling citizens to “decline to sign” the ballot petitions.

Reporting by the Colorado Independent revealed the campaign to be “part of an orchestrated, multi-year effort by both Colorado-based and national energy giants. One of their front groups is Protect Colorado, which funded the petition-gatherer-of-doom TV ad and is actively seeking to thwart citizens from qualifying the two measures for the ballot.”

“Industry has been gearing up for this fight for five years,” Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain regional director for the Environmental Defense Fund, told ThinkProgress. “This was kind of the pre-fight, the undercard… If either of these make it onto the ballot, we’re going to see a cage match — an all-out war.”

And the stakes are high. As the New York Times put it, should either measure pass, “it would represent the most serious political effort yet” to stop fracking in the U.S..

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office now has 30 days to authenticate the signatures before they make the ballot. The announcement is expected to be made by September 7.

Read more at: Commondreams.org

DNC Platform Endorses Fracking, Refuses To Recycle Leftover Food, Disavowing Party’s Key Principles

Democrats
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
July 28, 2016

Supporters of the Democratic Party have been abandoned, forgotten and left in the dust, as their purported representatives endorse policies that best serve their own interests, while completely ignoring the wants and desires of their constituents.

This was best illustrated at the Democratic National Convention, when the party made clear their decision to back the environmentally destructive practice known as fracking, giving full-fledged support to Big Oil and Gas.

Historically, Democrats have a reputation for at least pretending to care about the environment, promising to “protect America’s natural resources,” to regulate industry’s biggest polluters to ensure people have clean water, soil and air, and to do whatever it takes to label GMOs.

Bernie supporters flabbergasted by party’s decision to back fracking

But when it comes time to take action, the party falls flat, selling their souls to the very industries citizens are begging to be protected from.

Not only are Bernie Sanders’ supporters (who supported their candidate based mainly on his anti-establishment rhetoric) supposed to now back establishment queen Hillary Clinton, but they’re supposed to get behind fracking, too.

Thousands of protesters braved the scorching heat on Sunday as they marched through the streets of Philadelphia calling for an end to fracking – a process involving high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water mixed with chemical additives into deep underground rock formations, releasing oil and gas reserves.

Multiple studies have linked fracking to water contamination, air pollution and potential changes in our atmospheric chemistry, creating genuine cause for concern, which seemed to be shared by the Democratic Party – that is until recently.

Flashback on fracking views

Both Clinton and Sanders publicly vowed to at least limit fracking, regulating the industry to ensure clean air and water. Sanders, in fact, unequivocally supported an outright ban on fracking, endorsing the “keep it in the ground” campaign, while vowing to stop future drilling on federal land.

“Some of the differences between the Clinton and Sanders camps are more on strategy than on substance: Both candidates believe in climate change and have said they want to work toward deploying renewable energy,” The Hill reported in June.

It’s now apparent that this does not include a ban on fracking.

“During a 9-hour meeting in St. Louis, Missouri on Friday, members of the DNC’s platform drafting committee voted down a number of measures proposed by Bernie Sanders surrogates that would have come out against the contentious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), fracking, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine,” according to Common Dreams.

The panel rejected “a national moratorium on fracking as well as new fossil fuel drilling leases on federal lands and waters.”

“[W]e are here today to tell the Democratic Party that their base wants to put an end to fossil fuels and to ban fracking,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said while attending the weekend march.

“We’re demanding a ban on fracking and an end to fossil fuel infrastructure and to keep it in the ground. It’s time to really demand what we want and not half-measures.”

Philanthropy not allowed at the DNC

Fracking isn’t the only issue Democrats flip back and forth on. The party that claims to care deeply about helping the poor, essentially refused to recycle leftover food at a welcome party for delegates at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

One of the delegates, who reportedly “went to bed hungry many a night,” grew angry after the caterer told him that donating the food to the poor “wasn’t allowed,” according to reports.

Democrats actively working against GMO-labeling

Democrats also betrayed their followers on the important issue of GMO-labeling. The promises began with Obama, who vowed to label GMOs during his campaign for presidency. But instead, he appointed Monsanto executives to the head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The party again blocked GMO-labeling this summer, voting in favor of a bill that forces consumers to rely on QR codes obtained from their smart phones.

The legislation falls hugely short even for consumers who go the extra mile and check QR codes, because the decision about which GMOs will be labeled falls on the future secretary of the USDA, who will be appointed by the next president.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Democrats.org

TheHill.com

DemocracyNow.org