Is There A Quiet War Going On Between USA & Germany? [Part 1]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 8, 2017

I’ve had this suspicion for some time that some sort of quiet war, punctuated – or perhaps better put, underscored – at times by apparent “new depths of cooperation” between Germany and the USA. And, for “Germany” here one might also say, to some extent, continental Europe.

Now, before I go any further, I need to remind people of some fundamental truths: (1) since 1871, and for the foreseeable future, Germany has been and will continue to be the economic and industrial locomotive of Europe, and that can be (and has been) translated at times into military power (q.v. World War One, and World War Two); (2) German war aims in both World Wars was the creation of a European federation under German dominance (that one seems to have worked out), and, coincidentally, the USA had a similar war aim in World War Two, and became a backer for the creation of the Common Market that led to today’s European Union; (3) Germans are not Nazis and not interested in conquering the world; (4) the current American political class, beginning ca. 1988 and continuing to now, is equally as irrational, kooky, and insane as the German political class, which remains irrational, kooky, and insane(q.v., Angela Merkel).

With that out of the way, we can return to my suspicion of some sort of quiet war being waged between the USA and Germany. It began as a suspicion in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing, with the appearance of Andreas Strassmeir in the circle of acquaintances of convicted alleged bomber Timothy McVeigh. (I saw “convicted alleged” because if you believe in the ANFO bomb theory, then you probably also believe in the magic bullet and unicorns). Strassmeir had been “security chief” to an American white supremacist militia group, who was under FBI suspicion for a role in the bombing, who disappeared, and later turned up in Berlin, where he gave a brief statement to the press at the home of his father, Gunther Strassmeir, who just happened to be then-Chancellor Kohl’s minister-without-portfolio for German reunification. Strassmeir, in other words, was “connected.” Oh, by the way, he was also a graduate of the Hannover military academy and a captain in the German army.  Some believe he was in this country in some role as a member of German intelligence, perhaps on loan to the FBI. In support of that allegation, it is believed that Strassmeir was assisted in leaving the USA – during the height of a nation-wide manhunt for him – by the elite German commando and counter-terrorism team, the GSG-9.

Then of course, there are the well known – and very strange – shorts and puts on the US stock markets in the days immediately prior to 9/11, many of them made through – you guessed it – Deutsche Bank-affiliated corporation Alex Brown. Deutsche Bank itself suffered strange cyber infiltration just seconds before the Twin Towers were struck. And, as I’ve pointed out in my book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, there is a strange and little known connection of Mohammad Atta, alleged “chief hijacker” of 9/11, to various German connections, his stay in Hamburg, and even a connection between the Bin Ladens, and Deutsche Bank, by a notorious and allegedly pro-Nazi Swiss banker.

Since 9/11, there have been strange actions on the part of the US government, not the least of which was President – then candidate – Obama’s speech in Berlin to wild ovations. This was followed, during his administration, by fines and lawsuits against Deutsche Bank, fines and allegations for environmental violations on the part of German automakers, and, most recently, charges against and fines Deutsche Bank for money laundering. Of course, none of this is connected in the reporting of the stories as being connected to Oklahoma City or to 9/11, but I suspect they are. (See this Reuters article shared by Mr. S.D.  Fed fines Deutsche Bank for anti-money laundering failures.)

Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems to me to be a little “selective”, for I have difficulty believing that Deutsche Bank is the only major banking multinational engaged in money laundering. I suspect many big American banking giants are equally complicit, and the same would hold true for major banks in France, the UK, Italy, Japan, and so on. But no, for some reason, Deutsche Bank seems to be at the top of the list.

But now, it seems to have escalated to a war of words between the German Chancellorin, Angela Merkel, and US President Donald Trump. And Merkel is making her, and Germany’s, and Europe’s, position very clear (this article shared by Ms. B.Z.):

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

(For a more “anti-German” and prejudicial analysis, see Germany’s Merkel Says Europe Can’t Rely Upon Great Britain and American Anymore  This article was noticed and shared by Mr.H.B.)

The language here is extraordinarily strong, and, indeed (take note) a first for post-war German chancellors:

Europe “must take its fate into its own hands” faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday.

“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.

“We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added.

Let us back up and recall something I’ve been maintaining for about seven years: the USA has been quietly playing a dangerous geopolitical game in Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, by basing American troops progressively more eastward, in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, positioning them between Germany and Russia. Thus, while most analysts have been viewing these moves as “anti-Russian”, I view them as equally “anti-German” in that these movements and deployments were and are meant in my opinion to keep Berlin and Moscow apart, and to make economic coordination between the two European powers – the two most powerful European powers – more difficult if not impossible. It also not only puts pressure on Russia in the Ukraine, it equally denies a more “muscular” German influence in the Ukraine by breaking the direct land link through Eastern Europe.

Merkel’s response to this was to bring her vice chancellor(as Marine Le Pen liked to call him), Francois Hollande with her to try to negotiate an end to the Ukrainian mess directly with Mr. Putin. Equally, after those moves, we also recall then Foreign Minister Steinmeir’s address in Berlin to German businessmen that Germany’s foreign policy was going to have to become much more independent and military, and I suspected then, and continue to suspect now, that the backdrop for his remarks were precisely these American moves in eastern Europe.

The bottom line: Bundeskanzlerin Merkel is not simply “reacting” to Mr. Trump. The geopolitical and economic reality is that Germany was turning east long before the recent G-7 meeting or Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords.

To put this as plainly as possible: the Merkel government was handed a crisis of opportunity, and Frau Merkel is playing it for all it is worth, setting very long term policy goals into place because of it.

Just what all this may mean will have to wait for tomorrow…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

BREAKING: Aetna declares it will exit all Obamacare exchanges

... : How Will “Trumpcare” Differ From “Obamacare?” | FITSNews
Source: NaturalNews.com
Tracey Watson
May 16, 2017

There is no doubt at this point that Obamacare is on life-support. As Republicans work hard behind the scenes to dismantle it completely, insurer Aetna Inc. announced this week that it will no longer be selling Obamacare plans in Delaware and Nebraska – the last two states in which it was still doing so.

“At this time have completely exited the exchanges,” Aetna said in a statement released May 10.

Though Aetna was initially one of the biggest players in the Obamacare exchanges, this announcement comes as no surprise.

At the end of 2016, Aetna announced that it would cut its participation in the exchanges by 70 percent, reducing the number of states it would sell individual Affordable Care Act plans in from 15 to just four. That decision was made as an effort to claw back some of the company’s losses, and came just two weeks after Aetna declared $200 million in pre-tax losses for the second quarter of that year.

“As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision,” Marc Bertolini, Aetna’s CEO, said at the time.

Then, back in February, Bertolini criticized Obamacare’s markets, saying that with the increase in premiums, and more and more healthy individuals dropping out, they were on the brink of failure. In a video interview with the Wall Street Journal he went so far as to say that Obamacare was “in a death spiral.”

Chief Financial Officer Shawn Guertin indicated earlier this month that Aetna might withdraw from the exchanges completely to limit the financial hemorrhage that Obamacare has meant for the company. Even with representation in just four states, Aetna projects it will lose $200 million on individual health plans this year.

The Obamacare Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace officially opened in October of 2013 as an online marketplace for health insurance. The idea was that Americans would be able to obtain affordable healthcare coverage from competing private healthcare providers. Side-by-side comparisons would allow them to make the best possible choices for their families. On-site calculators would also enable people to determine if they qualified for cost assistance subsidies, Medicaid or CHIP. The promise was that tens of millions of Americans would qualify for such subsidies, available only through the marketplace. It was also claimed that 60 percent of Americans would qualify for coverage at $100 or less per month.

So, what went wrong?

Well, Obamacare has been very unpopular pretty much right from the beginning. While it is true that premiums can be as low as just $75 a month, deductibles often run into the thousands of dollars.

Natural News reported in 2016, that in certain states, premiums had increased by as much as 67 percent in a desperate bid to keep insurers from leaving the exchanges.

Over 8 million Americans were fined an average of $210 per tax return in 2015 for penalties related to Obamacare’s individual mandate.

Some people were also unhappy that they had to pay higher costs if they were cared for by providers that were not in their network, and that certain medications had been placed in high-cost categories by their insurers.

Critics of Obamacare have also called it a “job killer,” since employers are forced to obtain insurance for their staff members, increasing company costs.

Perhaps former President Bill Clinton said it best at a rally in 2016, when he said, “So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.”

Read At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

Bloomberg.com

Bloomberg.com

MSN.com

ObamacareFacts.com

USNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Bombshell: How Far Did Obama Spying Go?

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

During the transition between election and inauguration, Trump associates have phone conversations with foreign leaders. Those conversations are recorded by US intelligence agencies and turned into secret intelligence reports…

Former Obama National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, is accused of “unmasking” the names of Trump team members contained in those US intelligence reports and illegally leaking their names to the press. Bloomberg reports: “One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.”

In other words, US intelligence agencies, under Obama, were spying on Trump associates—and Rice obtained the names of those associates, which are supposed to be kept confidential.

Leaking the names to the press, in the current political atmosphere, would result in the impression that Trump associates were having improper conversations with foreign leaders, or even “colluding” with them. Lots of innuendo here.

The Susan Rice spying scandal points to what? More. Other Americans the Obama team spied on. Other Americans who were opposed to the Obama agenda. Other Americans who were critical of the Obama administration. Other Americans who were exposing the Obama administration.

For example, former CBS star investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson—who has sued members of the Obama team and several federal agencies. That lawsuit has just been referred to another venue by the judge in the case. He could have dismissed the suit, but he didn’t. He wants it to proceed. He wants Attkisson to have her day in court.

You might remember Attkisson was uncovering highly embarrassing details about the gun-walking operation, Fast & Furious, and the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi. She was making the Obama administration extremely uncomfortable.

But let me quote Judge Emet Sullivan’s recent order transferring Attkisson’s suit:

“In 2011——at the same time that Ms. Attkisson was conducting investigations and issuing certain of her high-profile news reports——the Attkissons ‘began to notice anomalies in numerous electronic devices at their home in Virginia.’ These anomalies included Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer and a family desktop computer ‘turning on and off at night without input from anyone in the household,’ ‘the house alarm chirping daily at different times,’ and ‘television problems, including interference.’ All of these electronic devices used ‘the Verizon FiOS line installed in [the Attkissons’] home,’ but Verizon was unable to stanch the anomalous activity despite multiple attempts. In January 2012, the Attkissons’ residential internet service ‘began constantly dropping off’.”

“In February 2012, ‘sophisticated surveillance spyware’ was installed on Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer. A later forensic computer analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s laptop and the family’s desktop computer had been the ‘targets of unauthorized surveillance efforts.’ That same forensic analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s mobile phone was also targeted for surveillance when it was connected to the family’s desktop computer. The infiltration of that computer and the extraction of information from it was ‘executed via an IP address owned, controlled, and operated by the United States Postal service.’ Additionally, based on the sophisticated nature of the software used to carry out the infiltration and software fingerprints indicating the use of the federal government’s proprietary software, the infiltration and surveillance appeared to be perpetrated by persons in the federal government.”

“An independent forensic computer analyst hired by CBS subsequently reported finding evidence on both Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer and her family’s desktop computer of ‘a coordinated, highly-skilled series of actions and attacks directed at the operation of the computers.’ Computer forensic analysis also indicated that remote actions were taken in December 2012 to remove the evidence of the electronic infiltration and surveillance from Ms. Attkisson’s computers and other home electronic equipment.”

“As Ms. Attkisson’s investigations and reporting continued, in October 2012 the Attkissons noticed ‘an escalation of electronic problems at their personal residence, including interference in home and mobile phone lines, computer interference, and television interference.’ In November of that year, Ms. Attkisson’s mobile phones ‘experienced regular interruptions and interference, making telephone communications unreliable, and, at times, virtually impossible’.”

“Additionally, in December 2012, a person with government intelligence experience conducted an inspection of the exterior of the Attkissons’ Virginia home. That investigator discovered an extra Verizon FiOS fiber optics line. Soon thereafter, after a Verizon technician was instructed by Ms. Attkisson to leave the extra cable at the home, the cable disappeared, and the Attkissons were unable to determine what happened to it. In March 2013, the Attkissons’ desktop computer malfunctioned, and in September of that year, while Ms. Attkisson was working on a story at her home, she observed that her personal laptop computer was remotely accessed and controlled, resulting in data being deleted from it. On April 3, 2013, Ms. Attkisson filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. The Inspector General’s investigation was limited to an analysis of the compromised desktop computer, and the partially-released report that emerged from that investigation reported ‘no evidence of intrusion,’ although it did note ‘a great deal of advanced mode computer activity not attributable to Ms. Attkisson or anybody in her household’.”

“The Attkissons allege that the ‘cyber-attacks’ they ‘suffered in [their] home’ were perpetrated by ‘personnel working on behalf of the United States.’ Accordingly, they have asserted various claims against the United States and against former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, and unknown agents of the Department of Justice, the United States Postal Service, and the United States, all in their individual capacities. Those claims include claims against the United States under the FTCA and claims against the individual federal officers for violations of constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)…”

Spying, surveillance, harassment, interference, attempts at intimidation.

Are you noticing any significant mainstream news coverage of this case? Of course not.

Ordinarily, mainstream reporters protect their own colleagues, but here there is silence.

Let’s call it what it is: PARTISAN POLITICAL SILENCE.

The silence is based on a principle they don’t teach at journalism schools:

“We omit the news that contradicts our agenda. Our agenda IS the news.”

Memo to the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions: You could launch your own investigation into the Attkisson case. Bring it front and center. Uncover all the nasty details. Expose the perpetrators.

Now.

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.

Ron Paul Drops Wiretap Truth Bombs

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
March 7, 2017

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=22046

A lot of ink has been spilled on the latest allegations that Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign last fall, but very few people have gotten at the heart of the issue. As usual, Ron Paul is the only one from the mainstream realm willing to state the truth plainly: They are wiretapping everyone, and they don’t need paperwork or special signed orders to do it.

Would You Censor Alex Jones & Mike Adams If You Could?

censorship
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2017

I write this in the wake of Google’s takedown of Mike Adams’ Natural News, and adroll.com’s decision to stop placing product-ads for Alex Jones’ infowars. These are momentous events.

In the current climate, there are MANY people who would, at the drop of a hat, censor and erase a news outlet if they could. And they would believe they’re doing Good.

Their knowledge of the 1st Amendment and its implications? Zero. Free speech? Who cares?

Much better to delete, erase, scream, light fires, turn over cars, block speakers, shout them down.

Here are several statements about free speech written by non-screamers:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment to the United States Constitution. December 15, 1791)

“There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly TERRIBLE to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a FREE PRESS.” (Samuel Adams, 1768)

“Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” (Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992)

But you see, there are now many groups who have traveled miles past a tolerance for ideas they despise. And these aren’t merely people in the street. Google apparently has passed the point of tolerance. So has adroll.com, a company that makes money by placing ads for clients like infowars. Then we have college professors and students from shore to shore, who insist on silencing those who dissent from their political ideology. And Facebook and Twitter are practicing censorship. To say nothing of major media outlets, who block stories that contradict their covert agendas.

There is always a THEY whose words and ideas are too dangerous to allow into the light. This assumption is shared by strange bedfellows: defenders of the National Security State and paid provocateurs throwing bricks at car windshields.

There is always a reason to shut people up.

“I’m in favor of free speech, but when (insert name) goes off on one of his crazy diatribes, he’s threatening basic human values, and he has to be stopped.”

Yes, and who appointed this “human-values defender” king?

Obama recently told an audience that news needs to be “curated” in some way, in order to limit the infection of “fake news.” Who appointed him to stand in for the 1st Amendment?

Peter Maass, The Intercept: “…the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law [the Espionage Act] to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.”

No problem. The president takes precedence over the Constitution, doesn’t he? Ask any college student, as long as you insert Obama’s name for “president,” and not Trump’s name.

It all depends, you see. It all depends on who is speaking about free speech. And it all depends on who is being attacked. It’s relative.

If you’re a medical blogger living in mommy’s basement, and you attack Mike Adams for his medical views, you’re golden. You want to limit Mike’s 1st Amendment rights? Why not? “Mike is dangerous. Mike is a threat to real science. Therefore, who cares if Google delisted his web site?”

The Constitution was actually an exercise in political and social relativity, right? It was never intended to mean what it said. It was always a “floater,” designed to favor good and oppose evil—and those moral decisions have to be made by “the wise ones.”

Shortly after the election results in November, the CIA-connected Washington Post launched a campaign against “fake news” sites. The campaign quickly morphed into: these sites aided a Russian op to throw the election to Trump. In other words, free speech was actually aiding and abetting a crime. That’s the way it was positioned.

Smear free speech as criminal. Any which way.

Here is another excuse for censoring free speech: “It is engendering hate.” Accepting that premise, every presidential campaign in the history of the United States could have been shut down. Untold numbers of statements made by pundits about presidents in office could have been blocked.

If a person “taking offense” at something someone says becomes the standard for censoring “offending remarks,” Congress should pass a law requiring silence 24/7 from all citizens.

So: who would censor a political website if they could? Huge numbers of clueless people with an ax to grind. They would do it without a moment’s thought. They would do it without a shred of understanding. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the Bill of Rights. They would do it minus an education that reveals how rational debate is a prerequisite for the survival of a Republic. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the meaning of “Republic.”

They would do it with the reflex of cows munching on grass in a pasture.

And even worse, few people would voice objections to the act of censorship.

“I would rather eat a cupcake, watch Law&Order, play World of Warcraft, put mustard on a hot dog, hand out a trophy for ‘participation’ than object to censorship.”

Or this: “I don’t like Alex Jones and Mike Adams. Never did. So while I defend the basic right to free speech, I don’t really care if they’re hamstrung. I don’t care if they’re blocked in some way. On balance, it’s a good thing. I pick my battles, and this isn’t one of them…”

Really? What about MSNBC? Suppose the network was shut down and censored? Would such an action rate as a serious incursion on the 1st Amendment? What about censorship of the Huffington Post or Politico or CNN? Would that rate a howl of protest?

Let’s have a scale of importance. Take names like Karl Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Plato, St. Augustine, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger…

Decide how to rank them, in terms of who is deserving of outright censorship.

Then, burn the 1st Amendment.

Burn it to ashes, scatter the ashes in a fetid swamp, and celebrate the victory of “moral values” and the protection of the citizenry over “dangerous freedom.”

I PICK MY BATTLES.

FREEDOM, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IS A GOOD THING. BUT KNOWING WHO THE BAD PEOPLE ARE AND SHUTTING THEM UP IS PRIOR TO ALLOWING FREEDOM. AFTER ALL, WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER. OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE. MUMBLE, MUMBLE…

The 1st Amendment isn’t there so we can admire the freedom of the people who utter what we already agree with. The 1st Amendment is there so we can rise up to a higher level, where we defend the rights of the people who are uttering all the wrong things, the things we’re quite sure are wrong.

Well, except for Trump. Except for Hillary. Or Bannon. Pelosi. Ryan.

Or Alex Jones and Mike Adams.

This is the age of information. Some information. Select information. Good information. Proper information.

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.

Obama has seized over 500 million acres in massive federal government land grabs

In 8 years President Obama Has Taken Enough Land & Water To Fill Texas 3 Times Over

SlantRight 2.0: Tony Newbill on Federal Land Grab Conspiracy

Source: IntelliHub.com
January 5, 2017

Over the last eight years President Obama has unilaterally confiscated over 500 million acres of land, moving more than 80 percent of Nevada and 65 percent of Utah under control of the federal government.

In fact, the total amount of land confiscated by the feds under Obama would actually fill the state of Texas three times over!

As an MRC TV report recently noted, “While it’s certainly nothing new, Obama’s habit of unilaterally confiscating land has ramped up heading into the final stretch of his presidency. In the eight years he’s been in office, President Obama has seized more than 553 million acres of land and water (roughly 865,000 square miles) and placed it under federal ownership and control – enough square mileage to cover the entire state of Texas more than three times over.”

“In fact, the self-aggrandizing conservationist-in-chief has placed more land and coastal areas under federal control than any other president in history, shutting off millions of miles of land to energy production or human settlement, along with shifting it outside the scope of local and state jurisdictions,” the report continued.

Astonishingly, President Obama’s use of executive land grabs under the Antiquities Act now makes up almost 20 percent of the entire amount of times any president has used the act to bring state land under federal control.

“Wielding the Antiquities Act of 1906, Obama has seized vast swaths of land and water for the federal government a total of 29 times, claiming more than 260 million acres as federally-protected spaces in 2016 alone (including a more than 100-million-acre plot in Alaska that amounts to the size of New Mexico).”

Clearly Obama has had an agenda when it comes to the use of the Antiquities Act and we are now seeing that sinister agenda come to fruition, especially with his latest land grab which could, by itself, start yet another confrontation between patriots and the feds.

Bundy Ranch area seized by Obama land grab

Just last week I reported on the unbelievably corrupt action taken by the lame duck president in which he unilaterally declared the entire area surrounding the Bundy Ranch, including where the original standoff took place, as a new national monument.

“With a stroke of the pen President Obama has unilaterally declared vast swaths of land in Utah and Nevada as two new national monuments, thus putting them under control of the federal government,” read the report.

“Startlingly, the area in Nevada includes the site of the infamous Bundy Ranch standoff as well as land very close to the Bundy Ranch itself. With this move Obama has possibly triggered another armed standoff while also heading off any moves set to be made by incoming president Donald Trump.”

Patriots across the country are already gearing up for another possible showdown over this sickening abuse of power, especially when you consider the fact that even if incoming President Trump wanted to reverse this decision he may not actually be able too.

As I noted in the report, The Hill and other corporate news outlets have reported that undoing Obama’s latest national monument designations would “likely require” a prolonged legal battle.

“No president has ever reversed a predecessor’s actions to create a monument under the Antiquities Act. The Obama administration and environmental groups argue it can’t legally be done, though some Republican lawmakers argue otherwise.”

With literally hundreds of millions of acres taken out of the control of the states across eight years, Obama has become one of the biggest land grabbers in the history of the presidency. And make no mistake, the move to include the area of the Bundy Ranch was a purposeful and direct attack on American patriots throughout the country.

Read More At: Intellihub.com

Obamacare in the crosshairs: GOP takes action in repealing ACA

Source: RT
January 5, 2017

As the Republican leadership of the 115th Congress prepares to fulfill President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare, Democrats have been vigorously defending President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law. For more on this, former Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) joins ‘News With Ed.’