It's Not Over, Supporters Reportedly Still Needed At Bundy Ranch By Justin King 17 hours ago in World
As tensions diminish and the standoff between militias supporting Cliven Bundy and federal agents winds down, various militias and supporters conduct a conference call to discuss events and strategy. As the standoff ends in what can only be considered a win for Cliven Bundy and the militias in the United States, supporters and participants hold a conference call to discuss the events. Similar calls have been conducted over the last several days to coordinate resistance to the federal operation. Callers are identified by a four-digit numerical designation or a call sign.
Reid Smelling Anything But Rosy In Ranch Fight Jerome R. Corsi WND.com April 13, 2014
Desert showdown blows lid off long-standing plans with the Chinese When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to take his cattle off land the federal government demanded for the habitat of an endangered desert tortoise, it focused the nation’s attention on an arena Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have preferred to be kept quiet. An investigative report published last week by Infowars.com drew a connection between Senate Majority Leader Reid’s involvement with Chinese energy giant ENN, Chinese efforts to build massive solar facilities in the Nevada desert and the showdown between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. It wasn’t the first report to notice curious dealings involving the Chinese and America’s top Democrats. Harry Reid’s last roundup: Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes China deal possibly driving fed action against rancher On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government. The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.
China grabs oil interests in USA The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.
By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from a $18.4-billion dollar deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp. China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100-percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide. On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010. • Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation. • Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy. • Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
• Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal. • Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy. • Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal. • Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal. On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.” Harry Reid and Chinese solar investments in Nevada On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of Chinese energy giant ENN Group, had teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value. Bloomberg reported ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees. Bloomberg further documented ENN had contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles. Subsequently, on Sept. 4, 2012, Breitbart.com reported lawyer Rory Reid, the son of Sen. Reid, had been appointed the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, fronting the bid by the Chinese company to build a $5-billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughton, Nevada. A Reuters report published on Aug. 31, 2012, documented that Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States. The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, RWyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, DOre.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo. “A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67-year-old rancher,” blogger Dana Loesch wrote last week. “They want his land.” Loesch pointed out that Reid has been accused by ranchers in Nevada of using the BLM to control
Nevada land, over 84 percent of which is already owned by the federal government, and to pay back special interests, including his top donor, Harry Whittemore, who first urged Reid to have the habitat of the desert tortoise moved before he was convicted of violating federal election laws by illegally funneling $150,000 to Reid’s 2007 reelection campaign. Confirmed by a 71-28 Senate vote on April 9, BLM chief Neil Kornze served as a former senior adviser to Reid before he joined BLM in 2011, serving for the past year as the agency’s principal deputy director, according to a CBS local television news report broadcast in Carson City, Nevada. In 2012, BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published a “Final Pragmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” that Inforwars.com charged established the basis for allowing the endangered desert tortoise to migrate habitats, paving the way to put solar energy development projects on acreage that includes public land at dispute in the Bundy standoff over grazing rights. Loesch’s analysis of the BLM’s actions was echoed at the Moapa Valley Town board meeting last Wednesday when one of the local citizens rose to give a stirring defense of Cliven Bundy and issue a warning to the BLM. “They can throw an army of men around there … with sniper rifles on people just like you are, men, women and children … out there, who believe they have a right to be there,” he said. “Maybe you believe in some other place that you believe you can be. Someday they’re gonna throw that army of men around you. And then somehow they feel like they got the right … they can drop a damn tripod in the ground and set a sniper rifle on it, so if you cross a line, they can put a bullet in you. Who the hell is the man behind that trigger? I wanna know … which one of you guys gives that guy the authority to throw that rifle down? And when he does, which one of us is he going to shoot?” “Good God, didn’t he grow up in this country? Are we gonna give it up? This is a helluva lot bigger than Clive Bundy.” The audience erupted in applause as the man concluded his speech. “And when Clive decides to go back in there after his cows, and they’ve got orders to shoot anyone who goes in there, I’m gonna be with him.” Someone in the crowd piped up, “Carrying a gun I hope.” “No, no,” he said, “because them son of a bitches will fire the next shot heard around the world … and we will fire the rest!” The full speech can be viewed, below. Reid Smelling Anything But Rosy In Ranch Fight http://www.infowars.com/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/ Bundy Ranch: Fed Retreat was Psyop Next Wave Soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw9GAh658_k#t=17
Department Of Injustice Seeks Dismissal Of Case Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. The New American April 13, 2014 Days ago, the Obama administration demonstrated its dedication to the indefinite detention of Americans, as authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by submitting a brief asking a federal judge to throw out a case challenging the constitutionality of that provision. Among other astonishing arguments made by the Justice Department, this paragraph from page 9 is exceptionally unconstitutional: On March 13, 2009, the government submitted its definition of detainable individuals under the AUMF to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the ongoing habeas corpus litigation brought by detainees held at Guantรกnamo Bay, Cuba ... that definition includes ... persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces. The DOJ goes on to assert that since the NDAA does nothing more than restate authority already granted to the federal government in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the plaintiffs lack standing; that is to say, they will be unable to demonstrate that the harm they claim to have suffered is related to the NDAA. As readers will recall, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges is joined as a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the NDAA by a coterie of other prominent writers and commentators. Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Icelandic politician Birgitta Jonsdottir all signed on to add their witness to that of Hedges that the fear of indefinite detention lurked within the shadows of vagueness of key terms in the NDAA. The principal allegation made by the plaintiffs against the NDAA was that the vagueness of those critical terms could be interpreted by the federal government in a way that authorizes them to label journalists and political activists who interview or support outspoken critics of the Obama
administration’s policies as “covered persons,” meaning that they have given “substantial support” to terrorists or other “associated groups.” According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA, the president may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain: A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. Fearing that this section could be applied to journalists and that the specter of such a scenario would have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press in violation of the First Amendment, Hedges filed his lawsuit on January 12, 2012. Hedges’ complaint claims that his extensive work overseas, particularly in the Middle East covering terrorist (or suspected terrorist) organizations, could cause him to be categorized as a “covered person” who, by way of such writings, interviews and/or communications, “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,... under §1031(b)(2) and the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force].” Specifically, Hedges alleges that it is precisely the existence of these “nebulous terms” — terms that are critical to the interpretation and execution of the immense authority granted to the president by the NDAA — that could allow him or someone in a substantially similar situation to be classified as an enemy combatant and sent away indefinitely to a military detainment center without access to an attorney or habeas corpus relief. On May 16, 2012 Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from exercising the indefinite detention authority granted the president by Section 1021 of the NDAA. In the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order, Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal government’s argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law. She wrote: “Section 1021 is not merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force].” Pointing out that were the AUMF and Section 1021 identical, then the latter would be redundant, Judge Forrest held: Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its
provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter — i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little — it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster. Scienter is defined as “a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for his or her acts.” In other words, the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are too vague and aren’t specific enough to permit a person to know whether he or she has violated the law. While admitting that preventing the federal government from enforcing a congressional act is a sober matter that must be attended to with caution, Judge Forrest writes that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.” In its appeal, the federal government argued that in cases dealing with “militants” and those offering “substantial support” to them, indefinite detention without due process is appropriate. In September 2012, a panel of three judges heard the motion filed by the Obama administration and in their ruling they point to “flaws within the scope and rationale” of the permanent injunction issued earlier by Judge Forrest. "We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government's motion for a stay," write Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier, and Christopher Droney in their order fast-tracking the appeal of the earlier injunction. Hedges and his co-plaintiffs had until April 10 to file a response to the Obama administration’s request that the suit be dismissed. A copy of the plaintiff’s response was not available at press time. Regardless of how the court rules, Hedges vows to fight on. In an interview with Mint Press, Hedges said, “We don’t want to give the government this kind of power because they will use it.” He added that he believes that the “elite are preparing legal mechanisms in which they can use wholesale surveillance and arbitrary detention to maintain order.” In an article he wrote for TruthDig, Hedges put a fine and frightening point on what’s at stake in his challenge to the NDAA and the president’s usurpation of power to apprehend and indefinitely detain anyone he decides is a threat to the security of “the homeland.” “This law, if it is not struck down, will essentially replace our civilian judiciary with a military one,” Hedges wrote. “Those targeted under this law will not be warned beforehand that they will be arrested. They will not have a chance to get a lawyer. They will not see the inside of a courtroom. They will simply vanish.”
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND