Ruthless Tyranny by Police in Melbourne


With more and more evidence coming out that this COVID-19 has been an orchestrated political attempt to prepare to subjugate the people for this Great Reset, the police who are supporting absolute tyranny in Melbourne, they are risking the real world mindless authoritarian power. Even the CDC in the USA admits more people are dying from suicides and drug overdoses than COVID. The German Health Minister has publicly admitted the lockdowns were a mistake.

Why is the Victoria police so anti-freedom? This illustrates that when the revolution comes, they are the first to be hanged as traitors. I have shown that when the police turn and support the people, that is when true freedom emerges as took place when Yeltsin stood on the tanks in 1991 in Moscow begging for them not to shoot their own people and in Ukraine when the police turned against Yanukovich. When they continue to support ruthless governments as they are doing in Melbourne and Venezuela, they inspire revolution which turns eventually violent.

It is truly astonishing how the Melbourne police are doing the same as the Nazis plead at Nuremberg – I was just following orders!.

Belarusian President Claims IMF & World Bank Offered him a Bribe to Impose COVID Restrictions


Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:

• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!

Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!


Interesting claims. They certainly cannot afford countries to buck the trend if they are behind this Great Reset.

There Never Was a “Woods File” Underpinning The Carter Page FISA Application – Here’s How We Know…


The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in any FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons, outside fourth amendment protections.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. However, in the case of the “missing” or “reconstructed” Woods file used to gain a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page, the overwhelming evidence shows there never was one. The Special Counsel manufactured the appearance of one ex post facto in 2018.

Here’s how we can tell:

♦ FIRST – Common Sense: Recent reports of the DOJ, FBI or NSD “losing” the Woods file are abjectly silly on their face. Given the specific importance of this specific case there’s no reasonable person who would believe such a critical file of underlying evidence would just go missing and have to be recreated by the Weissmann special counsel.

♦ SECOND – Precedent: In the March 30, 2020, memorandum written by the Office of Inspector General after review of 29 DOJ-NSD FISA applications, the IG noted the absence of Woods Files is not an uncommon occurrence. Factually within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA applications. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ THIRD – How Would They Get Away With That?: To answer that question it is important to remember the DOJ-National Security Division, the entity responsible for the legal assembly of FISA applications, did not have any oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

The DOJ-NSD could get away with the lack of legal requirements because there was no entity providing oversight to ensure the completeness of the legal requirements they were supposed to follow. Not coincidentally this is the exact division within the DOJ that weaponized FARA investigations as the justification for political surveillance. [That becomes important later when we get to Carter Page specifics]

 

♦ FOURTH – Trish Anderson Admission: The Deputy General Counsel for the FBI National Security & Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB), Trisha Beth Anderson, admitted during her testimony to congress that she never verified the existence of the Woods File, nor its content. Anderson stated she never even reviewed the FISA application for appropriate assembly because it came to her from an unusual top-down process.

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application. (link)

Why did she do this? Trish Anderson disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

When Trish Anderson signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew Weissmann, formerly of the DOJ-NSD, was running the special counsel operation.  Meanwhile FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI.

This was the third renewal where Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence to hide that Carter Page was working with, and was a source for, the CIA.

Again, Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson rubber-stamped the application because it came with pre-approval from above.  Anderson never saw, nor questioned, any underlying documentation; or the absence thereof.   The lack of supportive documentation, a Woods File, passed her review because the application had pre-approval by her supervisors.

♦ FIFTH – IG Horowitz Provides Cover for Institutional Issues:  Within his December 2019, IG report on the four FISA applications, Inspector General Horowitz covers for the issue of missing supportive evidence by saying the customary procedure for the Woods File verification is not needed when the evidence involves a confidential human source (CHS):

This description is entirely consistent with the DOJ and FBI using the Chris Steele dossier as a replacement for the Woods File procedures.  Under this sketchy justification Steele would be an FBI confidential human source (CHS).  Ergo, the dossier served as the underpinning and the only requirement would be for the application to “accurately reflect what [Steele] told the FBI”.   That’s how they pulled this off.

♦ SIXTH –Everyone knew it was BS – AGAIN FARA (Remember, FARA via DOJ-NSD had no oversight) this is part of the corrupt process: Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.

Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?

Carter Page joined the Trump campaign March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.

Not only is is incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.

Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.

♦ CONCLUSION: Taking all the above into proper context, when the office of inspector general announced on March 28, 2018, that he was going to review all four of the Carter Page FISA applications; no doubt the office of the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann; who was previously the DOJ-NSD FARA targeting coordinator; moved swiftly to create the appearance of a Woods File where none previously existed. That led to the Woods Procedure justification as stated by the IG.

There never was a Woods File.  The FBI and DOJ relied upon the Chris Steele Dossier as the evidence to support the FISA application.  Chris Steele was identified as a Confidential Human Source, and his dossier was qualified as a replacement for the Woods File.

That’s exactly what happened.  I guarantee it.

Sunday Talks: Secretary Mnuchin Discusses Federal Budget and “Targeted” COVID-19 Support…


Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin appears on Fox News Sunday to talk about negotiations with Speaker Pelosi for a funding mechanism for government.  Mnuchin outlines another “CR” (“Continuing Resolution”) that will extend funding through December 2020.

Additionally, Mnuchin discusses a “very targeted” COVID-19 support bill for those sectors, industries, companies and small businesses feeling the strongest impact. As the treasury secretary outlines, the administration is seeking optimal solutions for the current status.

 

Sunday Talks – Trey Gowdy Doesn’t Foresee DOJ Probe Delivering any Legal Accountability for FBI Misconduct…


Trey Gowdy appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest known information from the background of the John Durham probes into DOJ, FBI and CIA corrupt intent and activity in the “spygate”, Trump surveillance, saga.

Within the interview Gowdy notes he does not expect to see any legal consequences as an outcome of the John Durham investigation beyond the current pleading by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.  While Gowdy can be an insufferable voice at times, on this issue and given the nature of the current political calendar, he would appear to be correct.

Gowdy asks the question about where everything started.  In the earlier interview with Peter Strzok (CBS), the FBI justification (current narrative) was pointed back to George Papadopoulos and his thin gruel conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

.

At this point the corrupt DC elements appear to have successfully ran out the clock for 2020; and that is very frustrating from the position of two-tiers of justice.

However, that said there is a possibility more focus on the special counsel operation could lead to some rather eye-opening information. The public needs to know how corrupt the special counsel investigation was; what their exact intents and purposes were; and there is ample evidence mounting.

 

CBS Interviews Peter Strzok To Set Defensive Narrative…


It should be remembered that CBS interfered in the 2012 election by purposefully hiding an interview with President Obama where the former president denied terrorists were involved in the attack in Benghazi, a statement he denied in the 2012 debates.  As a result the politics of CBS are very clear in the narratives they choose to advance.

That said, in a heavily edited interview with former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, CBS once again attempts to shape a defensive narrative to cloud the truth of the DOJ and FBI intents within the 2016 election.  You’ll note this interview is actually very light on broadcasting the actual interview statements by Peter Strzok because: (a) Strzok has legal risk from any statement; and (b) the intent of this interview is shaping a defensive narrative.  WATCH:

.

This interview is frustrating on many levels.  First, because it shows how the absence of accountability by current DOJ officials has led to Strzok’s brazen ability to lie publicly.  Strzok has no fear in his appearance and is shamefully blame-casting and pushing a justification that is completely devoid from truth.

Secondly, this interview is a direct result of AG Barr failing to aggressively hold these former FBI officials accountable for intentional wrongdoing and purposeful corruption. There is no excuse.

 

Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth


Re-Posted from Just The facts daily By James D. Agresti September 3, 2020

Overview

In the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, five prominent “fact checkers” are claiming that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t support legalizing abortion up until birth. To reach this false conclusion, these individuals repeatedly use a propaganda technique condemned by George Orwell, the author of 1984.

The resulting misinformation shrouds the policies of Biden and Harris, who are planning to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. This stance is opposed by about 80% of Americans and involves ending the lives of pre-birth humans who have passed the following milestones:

Conflicting Claims

At the 2020 Republican National Convention, keynote speakers and others stated:

  • “Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion right up to the moment of birth.”
    – Vice-President Mike Pence
  • “Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable—yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.”
    – President Donald Trump
  • “President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris, who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever, even supporting the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.”
    – Deirdre Byrne, a Catholic nun, retired surgeon, and retired Army officer
  • “If you watched the DNC last week,” their “argument for Joe Biden boiled down to the fact that they think he’s a nice guy,” but policies that “allow abortion up until the point of birth are not nice.”
    – Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republican National Committee

Taking issue with those statements, various fact checkers reported:

  • “Biden does not support ‘late-term abortion and infanticide’.”
    – Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly of the Washington Post Fact Checker
  • Trump “mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.”
    – Unnamed staff at PolitiFact
  • “Biden has not explicitly expressed support for late-term abortions.”
    – Asma Khalid and Sam Gringlas of NPR
  • “Democrats generally back abortion rights, but Biden isn’t pushing to allow abortions for any reason up until birth.”
    – Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Jessica McDonald, Brooks Jackson and Rem Rieder of FactCheck.org
  • “Democrats support abortion rights, but that does not mean they call for women to have an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.”
    – Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times

In support of those claims, these fact checks all use a mix of similar half-truths that lead readers to believe the polar opposite of reality.

The Implications of Roe v. Wade

Biden’s campaign website says that he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade,” the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that struck down the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. This means he will try to pass federal laws that enforce the provisions of Roe instead of relying upon judicial dictates.

Biden’s website also says that he will “appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges” who will uphold Roe. The 2020 Democratic Party Platform embraces the same position.

In and of themselves, these stances constitute support for abortion up till birth because Roe v. Wade:

  • mandates that abortion be legal after “viability” when needed to protect “the health of the mother.” Viability, or the stage of development where humans are capable of living outside the womb with medical care, begins around 22 weeks gestation and extends to birth.
  • defines the word “health” so broadly that it includes practically anything. Some illuminating examples of what Roe considers harmful to health include the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”
  • gives the power to determine what comprises a health risk to anyone who is licensed to perform abortions. It does this by mandating that Roe “be read together” with Doe v. Bolton, a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day. In Doe, the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect “health” based solely upon their “best clinical judgment.”

The implications of Roe were made clear by late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of “the nation’s most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures.” He stated, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.”

In direct contradiction to the actual words of Roe, all of these fact checkers allege that supporting Roe does not mean supporting late-term abortions. PolitiFact, for example, writes that the Democratic Party platform “does not address late-term abortion” and that Biden’s goal to codify Roe “would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.”

PolitiFact then casually adds that Roe and “related precedents” require states to allow abortions after viability “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” This is a quintessential half-truth because it fails to reveal that “health,” as defined by Roe, means virtually anything that any abortionist says it means.

The Women’s Health Protection Act

Further proof that Democrats plan to legalize abortions up till birth is found in the text of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 217 of 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Both the House bill and the Senate bill, which is cosponsored by Kamala Harris:

  • would eliminate all “limitations or requirements” on “abortion after fetal viability” if the “treating health care provider” decides that “continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
  • defines a “health care provider” to include “any entity or individual” who is “licensed or certified” to perform “abortion services.”
  • would overturn more than 400 restrictions on abortion that have been passed by state and local governments since 2010.

The Washington Post Fact Checker is aware of the Women’s Health Protection Act but claims that it would merely prohibit states “from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.” This description is at flagrant odds with the text of the bill, which again, bans states from prohibiting “abortion after fetal viability” when any licensed abortionist says there is “a risk” to the “health” of the mother.

State Laws

A third line of evidence that Biden, Harris, and other Democrats are intent on legalizing abortion after viability is the enactment of state laws that do just that, along with promises to nullify state laws that limit late-term abortions.

For example, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law in 2019 that repealed a section of the state’s criminal code which had banned third-trimester abortions except when necessary to protect a woman’s life. In its place, the new law allows such abortions “at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”

As a NY State agency explains, the purpose of the bill was to bring the state’s law “in line with” with Roe v. Wade. States such as Rhode Island and Illinois have recently enacted similar laws.

Biden is also on board with this agenda, as his campaign website says that his “Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”

While she was running for president, Kamala Harris’ campaign website vowed that she “will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.”

Given that Roe has not been overturned, and the Supreme Court “reaffirmed” its “essential holding” in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, how can states defy Roe? A 2011 New York Times commentary by Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon explains that this is the norm because abortion advocates have decided not to challenge such laws in court.

She writes that “abortion rights groups” have “been wise to avoid” suing states that prohibit “abortion after 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy” because:

  • 72% of the public favors “making late-term abortion illegal,” and it is “best” not to tread on this “dangerous political ground.”
  • the current members of the Supreme Court might overturn Roe if such a case came before them.
  • “recent polls” show “that more Americans now identify as ‘pro-life’.”

Likewise, a 2018 Gallup survey found that 65% of U.S. adults favor making abortion illegal in the “second three months of pregnancy,” and 81% favor making it illegal in the “last three months of pregnancy.”

Yet, NPR misleads their audience to believe the converse by reporting that “a majority of Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.” NPR provides no evidence or link to support his claim.

Downplaying the Number of Late-Term Abortions

Bazelon’s commentary, which provides strategic advice for abortion advocates, stresses that “abortion foes … reduced popular support” for abortion by “making late-term abortion seem as if it were the norm rather than the exception. Yet only 1.5 percent of abortions occur late in the second trimester.”

Four of the five fact checks present that same narrative. PolitiFact, for instance, writes that “late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.” In the context of whether such abortions should be legal, this is a brazen half-truth because it fails to mention that the total number of abortions is so enormous that this small percentage amounts to thousands of late-term abortions per year.

2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “more than 15,000” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “at 21 weeks or later.” The authors note that this amounts to about 1% of all abortions, “but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually,” “later abortions” add up to “a substantial number of abortions.”

Hence, these supposedly “very rare” late-term abortions are more numerous than incidents that the media portrays as common occurrences in the United States. Examples include:

  • the 12,000 murders per year committed with guns.
  • the 5,000 Covid-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45.
  • the 50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty.
  • the 7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting, and the 1–2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes.

Pro-Abortion Rhetoric

Beyond the common arguments of the other fact checkers, the Washington Post adds a unique one to the mix. “Experts told us,” say the Post’s fact checkers, that just because “some Democrats support abortion rights,” this “doesn’t mean they support ‘extreme late-term abortions’.” As proof of this, they name one “expert,” who they describe as “Katie L. Watson, a professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.”

That is yet another half-truth because Watson’s official bio reveals that she is not a doctor but “a lawyer” and “bioethicist” who “is currently serving terms on the Board of the National Abortion Federation (NAF, the professional organization of independent abortion clinics) and on the National Medical Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

After whitewashing Watson’s bio, the Post quotes her stating, “That’s like saying everyone who ‘supports’ the Second Amendment ‘supports’ school shootings.” This analogy is inapt because Second Amendment advocates don’t support legalizing school shootings, but abortion advocates do support legalizing abortions.

This follows another attempt by the Post’s Fact Checker to place a veneer of factuality on a pro-abortion talking point. In a fact check published earlier this year, the Post argued that “supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions.” This is akin to saying that “supporting the legalization of rape is not the same as supporting rape.” Or “supporting the legalization of murder is not the same as supporting murder.” Or “supporting the legalization of slavery is not the same as supporting slavery.”

All of the examples above materially differ from saying something like “supporting drug legalization is not the same as supporting drugs.” This is because abortion, rape, slavery, and murder all involve actions that people take against other humans. In contrast, taking drugs is something that people do to themselves.

Summary

George Orwell is the author of 1984, a famed novel that depicts tactics of mass propaganda. In his renowned essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell identified one of these strategies as using words “in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” Thus, in the writings of fact checkers at NPR, FactCheck.org, the New York Times, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post:

  • “not supporting abortions after viability” actually means supporting such abortions if any abortion provider claims it is for health.
  • a “health risk” actually means child care, the stigma of unwed motherhood, being the mother of a unwanted child, or nearly anything that any abortionist says it means.
  • “very rare” actually means more than 15,000 times per year.
  • “favored by a majority of Americans” actually means opposed by 81% of Americans.
  • “a professor at a medical school” actually means an abortion industry lawyer.
  • “not supporting late-term abortions” actually means legalizing them.

Based on those semantic distortions and half-truths, these so-called fact checkers are claiming that Biden and Harris don’t want to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. However, an abundance of verifiable facts prove that they clearly do and are planning to pursue this agenda.

Recalling EPA’s Gold King Mine disaster – Part 1


Five years after the infamous blowout, EPA finally settles with Utah over Gold King pollution

Duggan Flanakin image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 6, 2020

Recalling EPA's Gold King Mine disaster

On the fifth anniversary of the notorious spill of 3 million gallons of heavily contaminated acid mine water from the Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State of Utah announced an agreement that ends the state’s lawsuit.

Neither the EPA nor the contractors involved at the Gold King spill site are entirely off the hook for their alleged missteps that resulted in downstream damages. Lawsuits filed by the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico, and a group of Navajo farmers and ranchers have been consolidated, and discovery is proceeding, with a projected trial date sometime in late 2021.

Pursuant to the agreement, Utah will dismiss its legal actions against the EPA and the United States; mining companies Kinross Gold Corporation, Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc., Sunnyside Gold Corporation, and Gold King Mines Corporation; and EPA’s contractors: Environmental Restoration, LLC, Weston Solutions, Inc. and Harrison Western Corporation. EPA also agreed to strengthen Utah’s involvement in the EPA’s work to address contamination at the Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site, which includes the Gold King Mine and other abandoned mines.

The agency further agreed to act on the Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s application for $3 million in Clean Water Act funds for various projects, including the development of water quality criteria for Utah Lake, septic density studies, nonpoint source pollution reduction projects, and nutrient management plans for agricultural sources.

The agency also agreed to initiate Superfund assessments by the end of 2021 at the Rico Argentine Mine Site, the Camp Bird Mining Site, the Carribeau (or Caribou) Mine Area, all located in Colorado, and possibly other sites that have the potential to impact downstream waters in Utah. Coupled with its work at the recently established Bonita Peak Mining District Superfund Site (which includes Gold King), the EPA expects to conduct and oversee more than $220 million in abandoned mining site work that will potentially improve Utah’s water quality by reducing the flow of heavy metals and other pollutants from old mines in the state’s waterways.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler called the agreement “a win-win for EPA and Utah” that “will bring environmental benefits to Utah, avoid protracted litigation, and hopefully serve as a lesson for the future to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.” EPA General Counsel Matthew Leopold promised that the agency’s “partnership with Utah will be stronger as we continue to support the State in addressing its water quality needs.”

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said the state is “very pleased that millions of dollars can now be spent towards mitigation, remediation and assuring water quality in Utah, rather than years of more litigation, trials and appeals.” This, he added, “is what cooperative federalism looks like – a true federal and state partnership” that protects the people, public health and the environment.

The relationship between the EPA and Utah was not always so amicable. Within days after Cement Creek and the Animas River were turned yellow all the way from Colorado through New Mexico and Utah all the way to Lake Powell, Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert declared a state of emergency and added that he was “deeply disappointed by the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. It was a preventable mistake, and they must be held accountable.”

CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Paul Driessen described the incident this way: A contractor under EPA supervision used a backhoe to dig away tons of rock and debris that were blocking the entrance portal of the Gold King Mine, which had been mostly abandoned since 1923. Because of steady seepage, the EPA should have known that the water was highly acidic (pH 4.0-4.5) and laced with heavy metals. It could and should certainly have checked.

Eventually, the greatly weakened portal burst open, unleashing at least 3 million gallons of toxic water that contaminated the Animas and San Juan Rivers all the way to Lake Powell, which straddles the Utah-Arizona border on the Colorado River. The EPA waited an entire day before notifying downstream mayors, health officials, families, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and kayakers of the toxic spill.

Driessen lambasted the Obama Administration, other Democratic Party officials, and eco-activists for their initial response to the incident, which also caused major damage to Navajo Indian lands. But while EPA’s own internal report called the incident “likely inevitable,” an Interior Department review released in October 2015 found it was both “preventable: and also “emblematic” of the federal government’s “inconsistent and deeply flawed approaches to reopening shuttered mines.” Driessen and others agreed.

Specifically, the Interior Department said that contractors at the Gold King site chose not to bore a hole to physically check water levels and contamination inside the mine before digging – a protocol established in 2011 during a successful mine reopening. “Had it been done, the plan to open the mine would have been revised, and the blowout would not have occurred.” Before undertaking its incompetent cleanup, EPA had threatened Gold King property owner Todd Hennis with a $35,000 per day fine unless he granted them access to the property (which the agency and its contractors then turned into a disaster zone).

In a follow-up article, Driessen found the testimony of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell shocking, as she stated she was unaware of anyone being fired, fined or even demoted – and that federal investigations and reports refused to hold anyone responsible for the ensuing disaster. Even worse, while then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said she EPA “absolutely, deeply sorry,” she disavowed any personal or agency responsibility and sent the Navajo emergency water tanks contaminated with oil. Then FEMA denied the Navajo any disaster relief, which prompted nearly 300 affected farmers and ranchers to file a separate (now consolidated) lawsuit.

(Driessen’s in-depth September 2015 MasterResource.org articles (herehere and here) provide extensive details – and damning conclusions – about the scope of EPA and contractor incompetence, negligence, double standards, whitewashing … and refusal to accept responsibility, compensate victims, or even observe the very rules that EPA typically imposes with an iron fist on corporations, municipalities and citizens. (Most of the damning photographs of activities leading up to and after the blowout appear to have been scrubbed from the internet. However, quite a few can still be found here and elsewhere.)

In the early days of the Trump Administration (while Obama holdovers were still running the show), the EPA finally released an Inspector General’s report on the Gold King incident. Rob Gordon, longtime head of the National Wilderness Institute and currently an advisor to the director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said the IG’s report was yet another whitewash, more for its omissions than its inclusions.

Gordon noted, for example, that the IG’s report had omitted EPA’s critical, erroneous and indefensible assumption that the mine was only partially full of water, and failed to mention that the EPA crew reburied the natural plug after unearthing it. His final assessment was that there are “gaping holes in the EPA’s fiction” which, if allowed to stand, will send a message that “misleading, deceiving and lying works, and that bureaucrats need not follow the laws they enforce on others.”

Navajo and New Mexico officials were equally dissatisfied with the EPA’s initial response to their cries for just compensation for immediate and future losses of both revenue and their traditional use of land and water impacted by the spill. New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas lambasted the EPA for seeking to “impose weak testing standards in New Mexico.” That litigation is still ongoing.

(Part 2 of this article will report on the issues and progress of their now-combined lawsuit.)
Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party


Ends-justify-the-means-mentality is why Democrats are furiously demanding mail-in voting for the November elections

John Eidson image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 4, 2020

Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party

As reported in the WSJ article “Heed Jimmy Carter on the Danger of Mail-In Voting,” a bi-2005 partisan commission co-chaired by former president Jimmy Carter determined that mail-in ballots are the greatest source of potential voter fraud.

Opposition to voter ID laws facilitates voter fraud. Despite feigned protests to the contrary, voter ID laws are not racist, nor do they suppress minority voting. How does requiring voters to present a photo ID suppress the ability of any adult citizen to vote? Government-issued photo IDs are easily obtainable by every legitimate voter in America, including those who don’t drive. Virtually every voting-age citizen already has photo identification, yet Democrats aggressively oppose laws that require presenting photo IDs to vote.

Partial list of things that require photo identification

● Driving a vehicle
● Airport check-in
● Hotel check-in
● Hospitals & outpatient testing
● Doctors’ offices
● Social Security office
● Medicare/Medicaid
● Pawn shop transactions
● Federal, state & local courts
● Military bases
● Donating blood
● Volunteering at charities
● Professional applications
● College applications
● Job applications
● Buying a house
● Boarding a cruise ship
● Boarding a train
● Getting a license to hunt or fish
● Buying cigarettes & alcohol
● Opening a bank account
● Applying for credit
● Cashing a check
● Getting a tattoo or body piercing
● Getting a library card
● Visiting Congress

And here’s a list of things that don’t require photo ID (in many Democrat-run jurisdictions):

● Voting

Democrat election official admits rampant absentee ballot fraud

As reported by The New York Post, Manhattan Board of Elections commissioner Alan Shulkin was caught on a Project Veritas undercover video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud,” including voter fraud. Here’s more of what Commissioner Shulkin had to say:

● “I think there’s a lot of voter fraud.”
● “There’s thousands of absentee ballots and I don’t know where they came from.”
● “In some neighborhoods they bus people around to vote, they take them from poll to poll.”
● “De Blasio’s municipal IDs can be used for anything, including voting.”
● “The city doesn’t vet people who get ID cards to see who they really are.”
● “Anybody can go in there and say I am John Smith and I want an ID card.”

When Shulkin’s comments were made public, he was told by Democratic Party officials to hit the road.

NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, “They Bus People Around to Vote”

EXPOSED: Nationwide voter fraud operation funded by the DNC

As Bernie Sanders can attest, his 2016 run for the presidency was rigged out of existence by collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, both of which were implicated in a nationwide voter fraud operation. Three weeks prior to the election, investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released two videos of an undercover sting in which high-level Democrat operatives bragged about running a nationwide voter fraud operation financed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign:

● “We’ve been busing in people [illegal voters] for 50 years and we’re not going to stop now.”
●”[We know] this is illegal.”
● “I think backward from how they would prosecute us, and then try to build out a method to avoid [getting caught].”
● “We implement the plan across every Republican-held state.”
● “[Our operation] causes massive changes in state legislatures and Congress.”
● “Hillary knows what’s going on.”

One of the covert operatives caught in the Project Veritas sting is a longtime Democrat named Bob Creamer. Found guilty in 2005 of tax violations and bank fraud, Creamer has been a highly respected player in Democratic Party politics for more than 30 years. Official visitor logs show the convicted felon visited the Obama White House 342 times, including 47 personal meetings with President Obama, a fact that was buried by the mainstream media when O’Keefe’s explosive exposé was released less than a month before the election Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to win.

Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party

Democrats say voter fraud is a myth, and that voter ID laws are nothing more than a racist effort by Republicans to suppress minority voting. In fact, voter fraud is a pervasive, nationwide problem that’s given a wink and a nod at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.

In 2013, a Cincinnati Democrat activist named Melowese Richardson was convicted of multiple counts of voter fraud. When released early from a 5-year prison sentence, Richardson was hailed by Al Sharpton as a conquering hero at a “Welcome Home” party held in her honor by Ohio Democrats. That Sharpton publicly hailed Richardson as a hero shows that acceptance of voter fraud extends to the highest level of the Democratic Party. Invited to the Obama White House 61 times, Sharpton was (and still is) one of Barack Obama’s most trusted confidants on race, and his public honoring of a convicted voter fraud felon would not have occurred without the knowledge of President Obama.

In the early 1970s, the post-JFK Democratic Party adopted Saul Alinsky as its most revered political strategist. A Marxist community organizer in Chicago, Alinsky believed that socialists are so morally and intellectually superior that their ideas must prevail at all costs. That ends-justify-the-means-mentality is why Democrats are furiously demanding mail-in voting for the November elections.