WATCH: These Obama Supporters Are Ready To Give The President This Shocking Power

For years, author, activist, and fake-petition-funny-guy Mark Dice has been posting videos that show ordinary Americans supporting extraordinary proposals. In July 2013, Dice got a bunch of California beach goers to sign a petition to endorse President Obama’s plan to repeal the Bill of Rights. Then a few months later, in September of 2013, Dice posted a piece with a more targeted goal — getting rid of the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. Again, Obama loyalists were eager to step up and support their trusted leader.

Now, Dice has once more “rolled” a willing group of Obama supporters who readily signed a fake petition to support Obama’s supposed plan to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. The reason Dice gives for the hit-Putin-with-a-nuke “plan”? To help Obama maintain America’s superiority as a world superpower.

By clicking on the video above, you can see just what happened on this sunny pier in San Diego when people were asked to give the president the shocking power to send Putin and the Russian people a deadly, radioactive message.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Putin And Buffett’s War On U.S. Pipelines

Abundant, reliable, affordable oil and natural gas empower people. They support job creation, mobility, modern agriculture, homes and hospitals, computers and communications, lights and refrigerators, life and study after sundown, indoor plumbing, safe drinking water, less disease, and longer lives.

Hydrocarbons make plastics, pharmaceuticals, and synthetic clothing. They create fertilizers and pesticides, to improve crop yields, reduce food prices, and improve nutrition.

But the Sierra Club,, and other radicals want to keep America’s oil and natural gas bounties in the ground. They block leasing, drilling, and fracking. They block pipelines that transport oil and gas to refineries, power plants, factories, and homes. And the more their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantras fall on deaf ears, the more absurd their anti-energy campaigns are getting.

Hydraulic fracturing and Canadian oil sands development made North American petroleum production soar, created millions of jobs, sent oil, gasoline, and natural gas prices plunging, and provided some of the few bright spots in the 2008-14 Obama economy.

New pipelines were approved and constructed, including the Keystone system’s first three phases. They augmented 2.5 million miles of liquid petroleum, gas transmission, and gas distribution pipelines that already crisscross the United States.

But when the Keystone XL segment was proposed, intense opposition suddenly materialized. Protesters railed that habitat disturbance, potential leaks, climate change, and ending fossil fuel use necessitated “no more pipelines.” Now, the Sandpiper Pipeline from North Dakota’s Bakken shale region across Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin, is meeting similar resistance.

As with Keystone, the protesters say they’re just concerned student, hiker, and Native American grassroots activists: average citizens who just care about their environment. The facts do not support their claims.

In reality, they are being bankrolled by billionaires, fat-cat foundations, and foreign oil interests.

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.

Meanwhile, pro-Sandpiper students from the Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow presented these inconvenient financial truths to pipeline protesters at a recent University of Minnesota rally. “Buffet’s Puppets,” the CFACT students called the protesters.

How did the Buffett-Tides-Putin allies react, when they learned they are being used by billionaires? They dug in their ideological heels and shouted insults.

One red-faced protester walked away. Others intensified their chants or shouted racially tinged epithets at the multi-ethnic CFACT students. None wanted to discuss funding issues, America’s need for oil and jobs, or how best to transport fuels safely.

This is what passes for “environmental studies,” “robust debate,” “higher education,” and compassion for blue-collar families on campuses and picket lines today. No wonder “environmentalism” and “liberalism” have become such pathetic political philosophies.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Russian Fighter Jet Caught On Camera Doing Something Crazy To A U.S. Destroyer

With recent reports of Russian strategic bombers penetrating U.S. airspace, encroaching in British airspace, and generally pushing the envelope of intimidation with other nations’ defenses, evidence of mounting tensions between the Putin regime and the West continues to pile up. According to The Moscow Times, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine and the United States’ expression of support for Ukrainian sovereign interests has turned up the heat of global friction between Moscow and Washington.

“…Russian bombers forced NATO to scramble jets to intercept Russian military aircraft over 400 times last year — more than twice as often as in 2013,” reports The Times in an article dated March 19, 2015.

Now, there’s been a close encounter between a Russian attack jet and a U.S. guided missile destroyer in the Black Sea. According to The Washington Post, the USS Ross was on an 11-day cruise in the region, conducting exercises with the Ukrainian Navy, when a Russian SU-24 Fencer attack jet appeared in the distance.

As the warplane approached very rapidly, sailors aboard the Ross determined that the jet had “clean” wings, indicating it was carrying no weapons. However, it did roar past the destroyer at fairly close range — close enough to be easily caught on video. The U.S. Navy released the brief clip of the warplane “buzzing” the Ross — an event that military officials said was not necessarily hostile. In fact, a Navy spokesman told The Washington Post that several of the Russian attack jets and the Ross “communicated safely” over the course of a couple of days.

However, this close encounter could certainly be seen as part of a pattern of pushback by the Putin government to let Western nations know that it’s not afraid to assert its military might. According to USNI News, the Ross has left the Black Sea, but not before Russian “state controlled media published reports that Sukhoi SU-24 Fencer fighter (sic) were scrambled to chase the destroyer away from the Russian-controlled Crimean peninsula.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the short clip of the Russian attack aircraft roaring past the USS Ross. You might notice the extraordinary number of views this video has received in just a few days — close to 3 million as of this writing.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BOMBSHELL: Watch Krauthammer Unload On Hillary As ‘Clinton Cash’ Scandal Goes Radioactive

As one considers the near-constant wave upon wave of disclosures and revelations about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and the allegedly related oceans of cash that flowed into the Clinton Foundation coffers, one can’t help but wonder if Sen. Elizabeth Warren is already preparing her explanation as to why she’s entering the presidential race.

Yes, the Massachusetts Democrat has said time and again that she won’t run for president in 2016, but Hillary’s political ship is arguably taking on so much water that it could well be at risk of sinking, at least in the eyes of Democrat power brokers, donors and strategists whose nervousness about the mounting Clinton controversies could prompt them to change course…and candidates.

Among the latest shockwaves to batter the Clinton campaign is an explosive front-page article in The New York Times detailing how the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary was secretary of state, may have benefited from a huge deal to put a Russian company — and essentially the Putin government — in control of much of the world’s uranium supply.

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

The Times article reveals that not long after a majority stake in that massive mining enterprise, Uranium One, was set to he acquired by the Russians, “Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

In addition, as the Times’ exhaustive investigation indicates, the Clinton Foundation took in millions of dollars in connection with the uranium deal — money that reportedly was not properly disclosed.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.”

This may help explain why, as Reuters reports in an exclusive story, Hillary Clinton’s non-profit “charities” have decided to amend and refile at least five years worth of tax returns.

“The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.”

Plus, as Western Journalism reported, a former Clinton Foundation employee with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a man who represented the Foundation’s Climate Initiative in Egypt — has been sentenced to life in prison. His offense was said to have been supporting an Islamist protest against the military-led ousting of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Clearly, with The New York Times featuring a detailed exposé of disturbing Clinton high-dollar dealings and potential influence peddling, liberal media are not backing away from this growing scandal surrounding the woman who wants to be president. Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, lays out a scorching assessment of the Clintons’ political operation as it seeks to downplay and dismiss a scandal such as the one that’s building around the soon-to-be-released book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.

Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer’s appearance Wednesday night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor in which another aspect of the deepening scandal — a deal involving General Electric — was explored. In a lively exchange with Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News contributor hammered Hillary for her “moral corruption” and took a look ahead at what might happen to Mrs. Clinton in light of the fact that, “She burned the tapes, she eliminated the emails.”

You can watch Krauthammer’s fiery segment by clicking on the video above. A Fox News special report based on the new book Clinton Cash — a program called “The Tangled Clinton Web” — will air Friday night at 10p ET on Fox News Channel.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

American Double Standards On Display In Ukraine

Last week, two prominent Ukrainian opposition figures were gunned down in broad daylight. They join as many as ten others who have been killed or committed suicide under suspicious circumstances just this year. These individuals have one important thing in common: they were either part of or friendly with the Yanukovych government, which a US-backed coup overthrew last year. They include members of the Ukrainian parliament and former chief editors of major opposition newspapers.

While some journalists here in the U.S. have started to notice the strange series of opposition killings in Ukraine, the U.S. government has yet to say a word.

Compare this to the U.S. reaction when a single opposition figure was killed in Russia earlier this year. Boris Nemtsov was a member of a minor political party that was not even represented in the Russian parliament. Nevertheless, the U.S. government immediately demanded that Russia conduct a thorough investigation of his murder, suggesting the killers had a political motive.

As news of the Russian killing broke, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce (R-CA) did not wait for evidence to blame the killing on Russian president Vladimir Putin. On the very day of Nemtsov’s murder, Royce told the US media that, “this shocking murder is the latest assault on those who dare to oppose the Putin regime.”

Neither Royce, nor Secretary of State John Kerry, nor President Obama, nor any U.S. government figure has said a word about the series of apparently political murders in Ukraine.

On the contrary, instead of questioning the state of democracy in what looks like a lawless Ukraine, the Administration is sending in the U.S. military to help train Ukrainian troops!

Last week, just as the two political murders were taking place, the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Ukraine to begin training Ukrainian national guard forces — and to leave behind some useful military equipment. Though the civil unrest continues in Ukraine, the U.S. military is assisting one side in the conflict — even as the U.S. slaps sanctions on Russia over accusations it is helping out the other side!

As the ceasefire continues to hold, though shakily, what kind of message does it send to the US-backed government in Kiev to have U.S. troops arrive with training and equipment and an authorization to gift Kiev with some $350 million in weapons? Might they not take this as a green light to begin new hostilities against the breakaway regions in the east?

The Obama administration is so inconsistent in its foreign policy. In some places, particularly Cuba and Iran, the administration is pursuing a policy that looks to diplomacy and compromise to help improve decades of bad relations. In these two cases, the administration realizes that the path of confrontation has led nowhere. When the president announced his desire to see the end of Cuba sanctions, he stated very correctly that, “…we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.”

So while Obama is correctly talking about sanctions relief for Iran and Cuba, he is adding more sanctions on Russia, backing Saudi Arabia’s brutal attack on Yemen, and pushing ever harder for regime change in Syria. Does he really believe the rest of the world does not see these double standards? A wise consistency of non-interventionism in all foreign affairs would be the correct course for this and future US administrations. Let us hope they will eventually follow Obama’s observation that, “it’s time to try something new.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth