Another Look At Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Death

athink
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2017

I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.

The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.

That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.

Heavy.com summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:

“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.”

“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published in Big Bend Now, in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer [!] about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior’.” [!!]

“Big Bend Now also published a story about the controversial investigation. Melaney’s cousin, Aspen Parker, wrote a letter to Fox News in 2013 saying that Guevara’s cause of death ruling mentioned that Melaney had submitted a letter of resignation to her employers before her death. Aspen wrote that he called Melaney’s employers and they said that wasn’t true.”

The death of Melaney Parker sounds like a case begging to be reopened. I now have a new statement on it.

According to someone with knowledge of the investigation (or non-investigation), the crime scene was a mess. The day after the police initially visited it, Melaney Parker’s eyeglasses were still there. They hadn’t been picked up as evidence.

Pieces of Parker’s flesh were there as well. The engineer of the train that hit Parker said Parker had been positioned with one arm above her head, which suggested she might have been killed somewhere else and then dragged to the railroad tracks.

After toxicology tests were completed, Parker’s remains were cremated without her family’s permission.

If all this is true, Judge Guevara’s decision to skip an autopsy and accept the ruling of suicide is even more suspect.

And then three years later, when Justice Scalia dies, Guevara issues the same long-distance ruling, on the phone. No autopsy necessary.

Here is what I originally wrote about Scalia’s death. It’s extensive. Six articles. Some of the information overlaps:

ONE: “’Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the senior member of the U. S. Supreme Court and one of the 10 most important public servants in the country. For better or worse over the course of his 29 years on the Court, he was arguably the most influential person in America’.” Eric Mink, Huffington Post, 2/17.

We start here—from the NY Post:

“Lethal poisoning could have left Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s body in virtually the same condition in which it was found, a top forensic pathologist told The Post on Wednesday.

“’It would look like he’s asleep. It [poisoning] doesn’t show anything on the body,’ said Dr. Michael Baden, who spent 25 years in the city’s chief Medical Examiner’s Office.

“Still, Baden stressed that natural causes was a plausible explanation.”

However, the official pronouncement of natural causes carries a burden with it. The burden of some semblance of proof. In this case, there was none.

And if you think “none” should be SOP in the case of a US Supreme Court Justice, you need to think again.

Judge Cinderela Guevara, miles away from Scalia’s body, sitting on the phone, rendered the judgment of natural causes after talking with marshals, none of whom had forensic training; and after talking with Scalia’s doctor, who was a few thousand miles from the Texas ranch where Scalia died.

Apparently, Scalia’s doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had a heart condition. Yes? And? This is proof a US Supreme Court Justice died of a heart attack?

Guevara, like a true bumbling amateur (or was something more ominous going on here?), decided no autopsy of the body was necessary. She decided she was too busy (doing what?) to climb in her car and drive to the ranch, to oversee the situation and talk to people at the scene.

So she said, on the phone, “Natural causes. No autopsy.”

In the case of a US Supreme Court Justice. In the biggest moment of Judge Guevara’s professional life.

And the Department of Justice, the FBI, the President, and all the members of US Congress immediately bought it.

No objections. No questions. No outrage.

Just the silence of the lambs.

In a city where blabbermouths never stop talking, suddenly—silence.

Paralysis.

And thereafter: no chain of custody for bodily evidence.

The body of a US Supreme Court Justice wasn’t put on a plane, from the mile-long airstrip at Cibolo Ranch, under supervision, and flown back immediately to Washington DC for analysis. No.

Instead, it was driven to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, 230 miles from the Ranch. It could have been driven 65 miles to the Alpine Memorial Funeral Home in Alpine, but it wasn’t.

At the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, it was promptly embalmed—ruling out the possibility of a conventional autopsy. Even then, forensic pathologist Michael Baden states, toxicology tests could be done by sophisticated analysis. According to Wayne Madsen, reporting for Infowars, no bodily fluids were collected at the funeral home for later analysis.

Roughly 10 hours after the embalming, Scalia’s body was loaded on a plane and flown to Virginia, where Scalia’s family lives.

But “most people think Scalia died of natural causes.” That argument, for impaired minds, carries the day. Nothing more to see, nothing more to know.

“Old man, in ill-health, heart condition. He dies. What else could it possibly be? Natural causes.”

As reported by Eric Mink at the Huffington Post (2/17), in an excellent piece, there were 35-40 guests at the Cibolo Ranch on the weekend Scalia died. Who were they? Was this merely a quail-hunting outing? Or was it another kind of get-together?

No word. Silence. Why haven’t any of those guests spoken to the press? Do they know something that would shed a different light on the official story? Are they afraid? Did someone at the federal level throw a blanket over them?

Judge Cinderela Guevara spoke to a lawyer representing the Scalia family. He said the family didn’t want an autopsy. Who is he? Why hasn’t his name surfaced? Since when is a client’s lawyer’s name a secret?

Scalia traveled to the ranch with a friend. No one is saying who the friend is. That’s also a state secret?

Does the Cibolo Ranch have medical personnel on staff? If so, were any of them called when Scalia was discovered dead in his room?

The official narrative is: old man, long-time public servant, dies peacefully in his sleep of natural causes. This is the thin gloss that prevents any Washington politician with clout from demanding an investigation? This quiets and paralyzes the entire federal establishment, including eight Justices of the Supreme Court?

Cowards and lambs.

Not an ounce of conscience among them.

Neutered.

And/or told to stay silent.

In the wake of this titanic silence, the narrative is quickly and expertly shifted to the question of who will replace Scalia on the bench. That’s the certified subject of chatter. Should Obama appoint a nominee, or should nomination wait for the next President? What is the rule? The Republicans cross swords with the Democrats. Precedents are cited. The man isn’t in his grave, and the hangars-on and petty power players are arguing over his successor. It’s a B movie. Pundits prepare talking points, clean their suits, see their hair stylists, and sidle into their minutes of face time on news shows. The shows deliver filler between commercials.

This is the wet concrete that sets over the death of a US Supreme Court Justice.

The one man who could have swept aside all objections, and ordered an investigation, visits the flag-covered casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, stands before it for 30 seconds, moves to a painted portrait of the deceased Justice, lingers there for one minute, and then goes home, to the Oval Office, to vet nominees, a herculean task that will unfortunately prevent him from attending the funeral.

Omerta.

TWO: Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic EPA climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind:

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be folded into the treaty.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Trump’s trade: TPP cancelled, NAFTA to be renegotiated?

Source: RT
November 15, 2016

Donald Trump supporters will be looking to the president-elect to keep good on his campaign promise to create jobs in the US. Trump said from the get-go that he opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, deviating from the majority of the Republican Party, including Mike Pence, who has a long history of supporting free trade deals. To discuss the now-deceased trade deal and Trump’s pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, ‘News With Ed’ is joined by Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and Kevin Kearns, president of the US Business and Industry Council.

Breaking: Bayer buys Monsanto: the Empire strikes back

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
September 16, 2016

This is the largest corporate cash buyout in history.

Mega-giant Bayer put $66 billion on the table, and mega-giant Monsanto said yes.

Think GMOs, crop seeds, pesticides, medical drugs.

Keep in mind that one of the consultants on the European side of this deal is the Rothschild Group.

But that’s not all. Dow and DuPont are planning to merge. Recently, another biotech giant, Syngenta, was swallowed up by the state-owned ChemChina. And this just in: two major Canadian fertilizer manufacturers, Potash Corp of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. are merging.

Consolidation, monopoly. The Empire strikes back.

The global rebellion against GMOs and pesticides, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup, is one of the reasons for these deals. But lurking in the background is another factor, exemplified by the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

If the TPP passes, corporate tribunals will take over the adjudication of disputes in which a nation rejects importing toxic pesticides, medical drugs, or GMOs. These tribunals will decide whether that nation is permitted to refuse importation.

Of course, the tribunals will favor mega-corporate interests. But now, with the mergers involving Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and ChemChina, the devastating clout of the tribunals will be that much more powerful.

The ability to shove toxic products down the throats of populations will elevate.

This is the corporate face of Globalism.

This is a giant step in the direction of controlling the world’s food supply.

Continue Reading 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.

Why The Mainstream Media Refuses To Talk About The Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]


Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Claire Bernish
August 2, 2016

United States — After two years with nary a mention from the mainstream press, the corporate windfall otherwise known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) finally earned some, albeit still inadequate, attention.

Considering a New York Times poll from June 2015, which found an alarming 78 percent of respondents had no substantial knowledge of the looming agreement — 30 percent said they hadn’t heard or read much about it, while 48 percent had zero knowledge of it whatsoever — the dearth in coverage by mainstream media allowed the TPP to go virtually unnoticed by the public it directly affects.

From August 1, 2013 through January 31, 2015, Media Matters for America tracked how often the TPP earned a mention from the Big Three major cable news outlets: CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. During that lengthy period, CNN andFox acknowledged the TPP just one time each — and while MSNBC appeared more on the ball, with 73 mentions, the now-canceled The Ed Show was responsible for 71 of those.

While it might seem remiss, if not wholly irresponsible, for such an expansive international trade agreement to escape the mainstream media’s attention, the omission wasn’t unintentional.

As Zaid Jilani explained in the Intercept:

“MSNBC’s owner, Comcast, has lobbied for the TPP. Last year, it fired host Ed Schultz, an outspoken opponent of the agreement.

“Time Warner, the parent company of CNN owner Turner Broadcasting, also lobbied for the TPP. 21st Century Fox — the legal successor to News Corporation, which operates Fox News — lobbied for passage as well.

“But using the television transcription service TV Eyes, The Intercept found that during the month of July 2016 alone, the TPP was mentioned 455 times by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — about six times as often as during the entire 18-month period studied by Media Matters.”

Those mentions, most assuredly, demonstrate progress in bringing light to the shady deal; but, with the exceptions of The Ed Show and Bernie Sanders and his supporters, the content has been generalized, rather than substantive, as a component of the presidential election. Donald Trump frequently decries the TPP as unacceptable and undesirable, though — in typical form — his tirades lack a depth of explanation.

As revealed in documents obtained by Wikileaks and reported by independent media, the TPP is nothing short of a grand corporate coup — some have even termed the measure ‘NAFTA on steroids,’ for its resemblance, exponentially, to the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA notoriously facilitated the ability for manufacturers to seek lower-wage workers outside the United States with little restriction — leaving at least one million skilled workers without employment, while lining the pockets of countless big businesses.

Now, the TPP promises to do more of the same — with countless nefarious additional provisions that go far beyond the manufacturing sector to directly impact the lives of every person in the U.S. And that, in itself, summarizes precisely why the pending trade agreement has been negotiated covertly, with secrecy normally provided only to matters of utmost national security.

But perhaps even the shallow attention brought to the TPP by the presidential election has sparked curiosity sufficient enough for the public to begin to question its efficacy.

As David Dayen wrote in Salon:

“Here’s one of the best indicators that Congress won’t approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership: business groups are running a public campaign in support of it. I know that sounds like a paradox, but if the image of the TPP weren’t so tattered, there would be no need for such an overt PR campaign.”

Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey


This article (Why the Mainstream Media Refuses to Talk About the TPP) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com.

Obama’s Final Push For TPP

Source: RT America
August 3, 2016

President Obama held a press conference with the prime minister of Singapore in a last-ditch effort to whip up support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact. RT America’s Lindsay France is joined by Jennalee Beazley, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, who says TPP won’t deliver the economic benefits it promises and will give more power to corporations while not protecting workers.

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

No Liberal: Hillary Is Pro Multinational & Pro Military-Industrial Complex

hillary-clinton-weak
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 14, 2016

That’s why I pledge that in my first 100 days as president, we will make the biggest investment in new good-paying jobs since World War II. We need more jobs you can support a family on, especially in places that have been left out and left behind, from Coal Country, to Indian Country, to inner cities, to every place that has been hollowed out when a factory closed or a mine shut down.  –Recent Hillary Speech from TIME magazine

TIME magazine among other publications gives Hillary Clinton a lot of positive coverage. It recently reproduced a full speech of hers which dealt mostly with “unification and community,” two favorite themes of hers.

But in this article, we’ll show clearly that Hillary is pro-multinational and pro-military-industrial complex. Those are her main planks, even if she rarely talks about them.

The speech as presented by TIME provides us with a vision of Hillary as a peaceful person whose main focus as president will be the greater good of America’s poor and middle-classes.

The propaganda surrounding Hillary’s political stances is much different than the truth.

In fact an analysis of the “big investment” Hillary plans shows that the investment will be made via taxing trillions in offshore  revenue.

In a June post at the Intercept entitled, “Hillary Clinton Hints at Giant, Trump-Like Giveaway to Corporate America,”  Jon Schwarz analyzes plans for Hillary’s big investment and concludes it will be paid for by aggressive tax reductions on multinationals.

[Here speech] was full of Bernie Sanders-like rhetoric about “outrageous behavior” by business and Wall Street.  But it also included a dog whistle that only huge multinational corporations would hear, telling them that she plans to deliver on one of their greatest dreams and slash their longterm taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The heart of this plan will be an “infrastructure bank … that will bring private sector dollars off the sidelines and put them to work here.”

But where would the money come from? Schwarz suggests it might come in taxes from trillions the nation’s largest corporations have stored overseas.

 Congress granted corporations a tax holiday in 2004 that let them bring back their profits at a tax rate of about 5 percent, or one-seventh of what the normal tax law required. Clinton, then a senator from New York, voted for it.

The incentives haven’t changed since then, so profits held overseas by U.S. multinationals have accumulated again and have now reached an incredible $2.4 trillion. That’s about 65 percent of the 2015 federal budget and 13 percent of the entire U.S. economy.

The law Hillary is apparently contemplating  would tax corporations whether or not they repatriated funds, but would also radically reduce their taxes.

Clinton has been vague about these plans but, meeting in April with the New York Daily News editorial board she indicated infrastructure money “may be [acquired by] repatriation.”

Schwarz also quotes her as saying, she intends to bring “private sector dollars off the sidelines and put them to work here.”

That phrase — bringing corporate money “off the sidelines” — is a favorite of both Democratic and Republican elites to describe slashing the tax rate on overseas profits.

Hillary intends to repatriate this revenue by making a deal with transnational corporations that have legally kept their profits offshore.

She wants to change the law to gain access to some of that revenue and then intends to use that revenue to fund infrastructure efforts and other forms of job creation.

The ability to unlock this offshore revenue is one reason why she is confident she will be able to work with Republicans in the House and Senate – as they would like to gain access to those funds as well.

Most importantly, however, the deal will enhance the functionality of transnational corporations. They will be able to operate more normally since they can brings funds back to the US.

There are other ways that Clinton intends to support the nation’s largest multinationals.

Despite rhetorical opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she won’t oppose it, per Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor.

He recently revealed a conversation with a Clinton advisor that he placed on his Facebook page.

The advisor told Reich Clinton would not oppose President Obama on the TPP  but that she had already shielded herself from repercussions by formally opposing it.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) gives corporations the ability to bypass domestic courts and directly “sue” governments via a new tribunal of private judges empowered by the agreement.

The lawsuits could be brought if a corporation believed the nation in question was enforcing laws that were unreasonably detrimental to its businesses.

Clinton is pro multinational and she is also a covert (and sometimes overt) proponent of the military industrial complex.

This is even evident to liberal publications. Here, from the Huffington Post in February, “Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine.”

Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan.

Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.  Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster.

She is a supporter of NATO expansion and voted to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO in 2008 legislation. She is anti-Russian now and supports the emerging standoff, and worse, between Russia and NATO and the US.

When you examine Clinton’s policies closely, you will see they do not depart from Obama’s or even Bush’s. She intends to fully support the two pillars of elite American imperialism: Transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex.

We’ve already pointed out numerous times that absent Supreme Court laws on intellectual property and corporate personhood the country’s large multinationals would not exist.

And absent the US military industrial complex, the US would not be involved in an endless series of foreign wars.

Conclusion: Under Hillary, things won’t change, though doubtless they will get worse. That is why she has the support of the US power structure, and why she was not indicted.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

 

Trump Vs. The Globalists: Gunfight At OK Corral

Geopolitics
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
June 29, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

In his recent speech in Pennsylvania, Trump clarified and intensified his anti-Globalist position. The Associated Press reports:

“’This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,’ said Trump.”

“Trump…criticized [Hillary Clinton’s] past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP trade deal], which he described as ‘the deathblow for American manufacturing.’”

“He vowed to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] to get a better deal ‘by a lot, not just a little,’ for American workers – and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal if his proposals aren’t agreed [to].”

“Trump has vowed to bring back [US] manufacturing jobs, in part, by slapping tariffs on goods produced by [American] companies that move manufacturing jobs offshore.”

“He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a ‘disaster’…”

Trump didn’t leave much room for doubt on his anti-Globalist stance.

There are many people who have yearned to hear this rhetoric from a major Presidential candidate…but absolutely don’t want to hear it (or anything else) from Trump.

To them, he’s a fast-talking cowboy, a hustler, a bullshitter of the first order, a rank egotist, a narcissist, a racist.

Fine.

Well, we had another candidate who was a mad dog for attacking Globalism, although he didn’t go quite as far. We had Bernie Sanders. He’s gone. He’s voting for Hillary.

Too little, too late, Bernie just wrote an editorial in the New York Times. His subject: Globalism. Here’s an excerpt:

“In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous [Globalist] trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries…”

“We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP].”

Sounds pretty much like Trump.

Of course, Bernie points out that this new revolution must NOT be headed by Donald Trump. It must be led by Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn’t actually mention Hillary by name. He uses the phrase, “a new Democratic President.”

That’s because, as he well knows, the idea that Hillary will overturn free trade treaties and slam back the force of Globalism is so absurd it’s laughable. Bernie knows Hillary is the last person in America who would try to torpedo these trade deals. So he just bites his lip and writes “a new Democratic president.”

Continue Reading 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.

Pharma companies use TPP to extend their monopolies – trade advocate

Source: RT
March 18, 2016

Brand-name prescription drug prices have doubled in the last five years, according to a new report. Now some public health groups and organizations say things could get worse, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal delays the introduction of generic drugs. RT America’s Ed Schultz speaks with Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, about how the new deal could lead to even higher costs of medication.

Scalia Murdered? – Sealed His Fake 4 Days Before His Death?

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
February 17, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind.

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com