Posted by Daniel Joseph Leach Jr.
For further discussion about this topic and many more join our facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/AntiNewWorldOrderPartyGlobal/
So Iv waited to write about the ND Pipeline protest until I figured out why this was really happening and why so many Native Americans are being sucked into this Geopolitical big business event and it took me awhile to put it all together. I live in the heart of the Oilfield in Williston ND so I hear all about whats going on with the North Dakota Access pipeline protest and its really one of the biggest topics of conversation around town.
At first look you see Native Americans Protesting about Clean Water and I am sure many of them do believe this and have actually gone and protested with this as their motivation to put themselves and their family’s lives in harms way they spend money they dont have they travel any way they can to get to this location where the protesting is happening because of this most Honorable belief.
But this is not the true story here that is just a cover story! I want to tell the other side to the story! I want to save my Native American Brothers and sisters from being sucked into and used by Billionaires such as Warren Buffett as pawns this False Narrative this is a scam of a protest! What we are looking at here is a False Flag Operation
The Obama administration that has come under fire for aligning itself with activists fighting a North Dakota pipeline project even as the protest at the 2-month-old encampment spirals out of control. This is not about Water its about money big money! Billionaires such as Warren Buffett are using secretive foundations to finance anti-pipeline protests as the rich get even richer. They are, in reality, being bankrolled by billionaires, fat-cat foundations and foreign oil interests.
This section Copied from: http://naturalgasnow.org/
Putin-allied Russian oil billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found.
Sandpiper opponents are also being funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations, researcher Ron Arnold discovered.
It’s true that several small groups are involved in the anti-Sandpiper protests. However, the campaign is coordinated by Honor the Earth, a Native American group that is actually a Tides Foundation “project,” with the Tides Center as its “fiscal sponsor.” They’ve contributed $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.
The Indigenous Environmental Network also funds Honor the Earth. Minnesota corporate records show no incorporation entry for the Network, and 95% of its money comes from outside Minnesota. Tides gave IEN $670,000 to oppose pipelines.
Indeed, $25 billion in left-wing foundation investment portfolios support the anti-Sandpiper effort. Vastly more backing makes the $13-billion-per-year U.S. environmentalist movement a power to be reckoned with, Arnold and I document in our book, Cracking Big Green.
These tax-exempt foundations do not simply give money to pressure groups. They serve as puppeteers, telling protesters what campaigns to conduct, what tactics to use. Meanwhile, donors enjoy deductions for “charitable giving” to “education, conservation and other social change” programs.
Tides Foundation combined cash flows exceed $200 million annually, Canadian investigative journalist Cory Morningstar reported (here and here). Like Arnold, she and fellow Canadian sleuth Vivian Krause have delved deeply into troubling arrangements among Big Green, Big Government and Big Finance.
Morningstar calls the San Francisco-based Tides operation “a priceless, magical, money funneling machine of epic proportions.” It enables über-rich donors to distribute funds to specific organizations and campaigns of their choice, without disclosing their identities.
Even more interesting, among Tides’ biggest donors is Obama friend and advisor Warren Buffett. Beginning in 2004, Buffett funneled $30.5 million through his family’s NoVo Foundation to Tides. The cash ultimately went to selected pressure groups that led campaigns against Keystone, Sandpiper and other projects, Morningstar and Arnold found.
By donating the market value of greatly appreciated Berkshire Hathaway shares to NoVo, the Omaha billionaire avoided income taxes on his gains. Even more important, while public, media and political attention was riveted on Keystone, Berkshire Hathaway quietly bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Union Tank Car manufacturing company – with no notice, dissent or interference, Morningstar observed.
When Keystone XL et al. were blocked, more oil was shipped by rail – much of it via Buffett companies. In fact, oil-by-rail skyrocketed from 9,500 carloads in 2009 to 450,000 carloads in 2014. Mr. Buffett’s “investment” in anti-pipeline activism garnered billions in rail revenues.
The anti-pipeline campaigns blocked thousands of jobs and increased risks of tank car derailments, like the Lac Megantic, Quebec spill that destroyed much of the town and incinerated 47 people.
That may help explain why Mr. Buffett recently criticized President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL legislation. He now says the pipeline would be good for both Canada and the United States, and it is a mistake to jeopardize trade relationships with our northern neighbor.
But, the campaigns rage on. Mr. Buffett helped unleash a beast he cannot control. The campaigns are not grassroots, or even Astroturf. Their “green” tint is the color of unfathomable behind-the-scenes wealth.
The clandestine Buffett-Berkshire-NoVo-Putin-Tides-activist-railroad arrangement reflects “a devious strategy on the part of both benefactor and recipient,” Morningstar concludes. “At minimum, it demonstrates an almost criminal conflict of interest.” Legislative investigations are needed, especially since the Justice Department is hardly likely to look into what its key allies are doing.
It might be tempting to accuse Buffett of wielding his political influence to block Keystone XL — after all, he is a major Obama donor — but that’s not what is happening here. Buffett has repeatedly endorsed the pipeline, calling it “probably … a good idea for the country.” He has said it would not be “that big of a competitor” to BNSF since it would move crude down from Canada, whereas BNSF’s oil business mainly involves crude from the Bakken shale.
, the company seeking to build the pipeline, is the most direct loser from Obama’s decision, but the veto also impacts dozens of producers, including energy majors such as ExxonMobil
, that would benefit from a cheaper way to send Canadian oil to refineries.
However, there are also some surprising beneficiaries from the administration’s refusal to allow the pipeline to be built. The shale boom in North Dakota and other parts of the country has led to a shortage of pipeline capacity, which is part of the reason that TransCanada wants to build Keystone XL. In lieu of adequate pipeline infrastructure, oil companies have had to use alternative methods for shipping crude, including trucks, freight trains, and barges. In fact, more oil is moving by freight transit now than at any time since record-keeping began in 1981. From 2011 to 2012, U.S. rail deliveries of crude quadrupled. In North Dakota, which would have some usage of the Keystone XL, rail is used to carry 69% of production.
This section copied from:http://agenda21news.com
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states. “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Employees of the federal government often quote the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to assert that federal law trumps state law, including the state’s police powers. However, bureaucrats usually only quote the first half of the clause. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States of America 1789 found at article VI, clause 2 makes is very specific as to what it says.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
To fully understand exactly what this means you have to go to Webster’s Dictionary 1828 for the definition of, “notwithstanding.”
NOTWITHSTAND’ING, the participle of withstand, with not prefixed, and signifying not opposing; nevertheless. It retains in all cases its participial signification.
Gun wielding federal bureaucrats, as seen in recent federal raids such as the Bundy raid, USFWS raid on Gibson Guitar Company, and many others, are operating outside their lawful delegated authority. Unless the federal agencies are required by the sheriff to follow the law they will continue to illegally encroach upon state jurisdiction. When the local sheriff, as in the case of Clark Co. Sheriff Gillespie abdicate their duties, and turn a law enforcement operation over to the federal government, they may subject themselves to removal for malfeasance of office.
The recent breach of the peace that we witnessed in Clark Co., Nevada emphasizes the gravity of allowing federal employees to continue to assert law enforcement powers never granted to them by Congress or the Constitution. These federal employees need to be disarmed. Congress needs to open an investigation into appropriations for guns, ammunition and law enforcement equipment. Managers of the BLM, USFS and other agencies should be called to testify under oath about where in law they obtain their law enforcement authority. While the BLM asserts they were merely enforcing a lawful court order in the Bundy matter, Congress needs to investigate the numerous court orders against federal agencies which they ignore with impunity. The rule of law needs to apply equally to everyone, including federal bureaucrats.
 Report, Part I, p. 8  Report, Part I, p. 13-14  Report, Part I, p. 21.  Report, Part I, p. 98  Report, Part I, p. 234The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.
A service of Liberty and Property Rights Coalition, 2013.” Posted on JUNE 29, 2014 Written by
This section was taken from the official http://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, is the Bureau of Land Management “organic act” that establishes the agency’s multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations.
TITLE V RIGHTS-OF-WAY AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT RIGHTS-OF-WAY Sec. 501. [43 U.S.C. 1761] (a) The Secretary, with respect to the public lands (including public lands, as defined in section 103(e) of this Act, which are reserved from entry pursuant to section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 818)) [P.L. 102-486, 1992] and, the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest System (except in each case land designated as wilderness), are authorized to grant, issue, or renew rights-or-way over, upon, under, or through such lands for– (1) reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other facilities and systems for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of water; (2) pipelines and other systems for the transportation or distribution of liquids and gases, other than water and other than oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom, and for storage and terminal facilities in connection therewith; (3) pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for transportation and distribution of solid materials, and facilities for the storage of such materials in connection therewith; (4) systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, except that the applicant shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, including part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791a- 825r) [P.L. 102-486, 1992]; (5) systems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and other means of communication; (6) roads, trails, highways, railroads, canals, tunnels, tramways, airways, livestock driveways, or other means of transportation except where such facilities are constructed and maintained in connection with commercial recreation facilities on lands in the National Forest System; or (7) such other necessary transportation or other systems or facilities which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, under, or through such lands. (b) (1) The Secretary concerned shall require, prior to granting, issuing, or renewing a right-ofway, that the applicant submit and disclose those plans, contracts, agreements, or other information reasonably related to the use, or intended use, of the right-of-way, including its effect on competition, which he deems necessary to a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as to whether a right-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed and the terms and conditions which should be included in the right-of-way. (2) If the applicant is a partnership, corporation, association, or other business entity, the Secretary concerned, prior to granting a right-to-way pursuant to this title, shall require the applicant to disclose the identity of the participants in the entity, when he deems it necessary to a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this title, as to whether a right-of-way shall be granted, issued, or renewed and the terms and conditions which should be included in the right-of-way. Such disclosures shall include, where applicable: (A) the name and address of each partner; (B) the name and address of each share-holder owning 3 per centum or more of the shares, together with the number and percentage of any class of voting shares of the entity which such shareholder is authorized to vote; and (C) the name and address of each affiliate of the entity together with, in the case of an affiliate controlled by the entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that affiliate owned, directly or indirectly, by that entity, and, in the case of an affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting 36 ———— Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate. (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall have the authority to administer all rights-of-way granted or issued under authority of previous Acts with respect to lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, including rights-of-way granted or issued pursuant to authority given to the Secretary of the Interior by such previous Acts. [P.L. 99-545, 1986] (c) (1) Upon receipt of a written application pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection from an applicant meeting the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue a permanent easement, without a requirement for reimbursement, for a water system as described in subsection (a)(1) of this section, traversing Federal lands within the National Forest System (‘National Forest Lands’), constructed and in operation or placed into operation prior to October 21, 1976, if – (A) the traversed National Forest lands are in a State where the appropriation doctrine governs the ownership of water rights; (B) at the time of submission of the application the water system is used solely for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering purposes; (C) the use served by the water system is not located solely on Federal lands; (D) the originally constructed facilities comprising such system have been in substantially continuous operation without abandonment; (E) the applicant has a valid existing right, established under applicable State law, for water to be conveyed by the water system; (F) a recordable survey and other information concerning the location and characteristics of the system as necessary for proper management of National Forest lands is provided to the Secretary of Agriculture by the applicant for the easement; and (G) the applicant submits such application on or before December 31, 1996. (2) (A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting any grants made by any previous Act. To the extent any such previous grant of right-of-way is a valid existing right, it shall remain in full force and effect unless an owner thereof notifies the Secretary of Agriculture that such owner elects to have a water system on such right-of-way governed by the provision of this subsection and submits a written application for issuance of an easement pursuant to this subsection, in which case upon the issuance of an easement pursuant to this subsection such previous grant shall be deemed to have been relinquished and shall terminate. (B) Easements issued under the authority of this subsection shall be fully transferable with all existing conditions and without the imposition of fees or new conditions or stipulations at the time of transfer. The holder shall notify the Secretary of Agriculture within sixty days of any address change of the holder or change in ownership of the facilities. (C) Easements issued under the authority of this subsection shall include all changes or modifications to the original facilities in existence as of October 21, 1976, the date of enactment of this Act. (D) Any future extension or enlargement of facilities after October 21, 1976, shall require the issuance of a separate authorization, not authorized under this subsection. (3) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture may terminate or suspend an easement issued pursuant to this subsection in accordance with the procedural and other provisions of section 506 [43 U.S.C. 1766] of this Act. An easement issued pursuant to this subsection shall terminate if the water system for which such easement was issued is used for any purpose other than agricultural irrigation or livestock watering use. For purposes of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, non-use of a water system for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering purposes for any continuous fiveyear period shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of abandonment of the facilities comprising such system. (B) Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to be an assertion by the United States of any right Public Law 94–579—Oct. 21, 1976, as amended through May 7, 2001 ———— 37 or claim with regard to the reservation, acquisition, or use of water. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to confer on the Secretary of Agriculture any power or authority to regulate or control in any manner the appropriation, diversion, or use of water for any purpose (nor to diminish any such power to authority of such Secretary under applicable law) or to require the conveyance or transfer to the United States of any right or claim to the appropriation, diversion, or use of water. (C) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, all rights-of-way issued pursuant to this subsection are subject to all conditions and requirements of this Act. (D) In the event a right-of-way issued pursuant to this subsection is allowed to deteriorate to the point of threatening persons or property and the holder of the right-of-way, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, refuses to perform the repair and maintenance necessary to remove the threat to persons or property, the Secretary shall have the right to undertake such repair and maintenance on the right-of-way and to assess the holder for the costs of such repair and maintenance, regardless of whether the Secretary had required the holder to furnish a bond or other security pursuant to subsection (i) of this section. [P.L. 99-545, 1986] (d) With respect to any project or portion thereof that was licensed pursuant to, or granted an exemption from, part I of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.] which is located on lands subject to a reservation under section 24 of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 818] and which did not receive a permit, right-of-way or other approval under this section prior to enactment of this subsection, no such permit, right-of-way, or other approval shall be required for continued operation, including continued operation pursuant to section 15 of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 808], of such project unless the Commission determines that such project involves the use of any additional public lands or National Forest lands not subject to such reservation. [P.L. 102-486, 1992] C