+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 13730
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 41 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:

Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 16, 2019, 01:27:28 pm »

October 16, 2018

Climate Rage Is Working

On Monday, Reuters scored an exclusive interview with 🦖 Ben van Beurden, the CEO of the Oil Company. During the sitdown, he decried people demonizing oil and said it’s “entirely legitimate to invest in oil and gas because the world demands it” and that “we have no choice” but to keep investing in dirty fossil fuel exploration.

Van Beurden’s remarks are, to put it in no uncertain terms, climate denialism. But because he said he defended the legitimacy of oil in response to “activists” claims, his comments are also a sign of something else: that the new, global outburst of climate rage is working.

In recent years, oil ...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 10, 2019, 02:16:09 pm »

Donald 🦀 Trump caught trying to commit a bizarre crime involving 👹 Turkey and 🦖 Rex Tillerson
Bill Palmer | 10:49 pm EDT October 9, 2019
Palmer Report » Analysis

As we speak, Donald Trump is doing an unconscionable and deadly favor to Turkish leader Erdogan by allowing him to invade northern Syria and slaughter U.S.-allied Kurds. Why is Trump being so personally loyal to yet another evil world leader? Tonight it surfaced that this is far from the first time in which Trump has tried to do Erdogan an illegal favor.

Back when Turkish criminal Reza Zarrab was being criminally prosecuted by the U.S. government, Donald Trump asked then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to get Zarrab off the hook, according to a stunning new report tonight from Bloomberg. Tillerson reportedly refused to go along with it, and voiced his objections to John Kelly, but neither man went public with the obstruction of justice crime that Trump was committing. It gets worse.

Longtime Palmer Report readers will recall the name Reza Zarrab because of his ties to two key Trump advisers: 😈 Michael Flynn and 🐍 Rudy Giuliani. After Zarrab ended up cutting a cooperating plea deal, Flynn ended up cutting a plea deal of his own, ostensibly because Zarrab had sold him out. In addition, Rudy was acting as Zarrab’s informal legal counsel, and at one point Giuliani was lectured by a judge for his unscrupulous antics with regard to Zarrab’s trial. There’s more.

Former Obama administration official Colin Kahl tweeted tonight that Turkish leader Erdogan had been pressuring the Obama administration to let Reza Zarrab off the hook – to no avail – because Erdogan worried about the secrets Zarrab would spill. So it turns out Donald Trump committed a crime in the name of getting a foreign national criminal off the hook, in a manner that would have benefitted Erdogan, Flynn, and Giuliani.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 01, 2019, 10:20:01 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

October 1, 2019

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 20, 2019, 12:20:27 pm »

🦖 Pompeo and 🦕 MBS: Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Birds of a Feather

Agelbert NOTE: Why indeed. Perhaps the BBC should have rephrased the question. Perhaps Iran is a Saudi scapegoat, not the issue. Perhaps the ISSUE is Saudi BULLSHIT.

Why would Saudi Arabia want to stage a false flag attack on its own refinery?
I'm glad you asked and not surprised the BBC DID NOT ask. However, the media (see: Convince people to look in the wrong direction 😈), always quick to do their ethics free wordsmith thing to herd people into seeking answers to straw man erected questions, instead of asking and answering the right questions in the first place, do not fool those in the investment community, who have to navigate through financial carnival barking legerdemain on a daily basis. 

Investment in hydrocarbons has always been a rigged EROEI SCAM based on using the biosphere as an open sewer to "externalize" pollution costs. Though Blain's Saudi Oil valuation math still excludes the "externized" pollution costs, it sees through the BS about the (convenient) "attack" on a Saudi refinery just before the Saudi ARAMCO IPO. It is refreshing to see the investment crowd's BS detectors working properly.

Fri, 09/20/2019 - 11:10


After the Globe’s third largest defence spending state was crippled by supposedly unsophisticated Houthi rebels (with some likely assistance from Iran ) when they struck his oil infrastructure, this morning the headlines are all about how MBS is now arm-twisting rich Saudi’s to buy into the discredited Aramco IPO.

However, a number of my sources suggest things look increasingly questionable in the desert kingdom. Looking at the photos of the Houthi drone strikes, the damage and the holes made in the gas tanks look suspiciously regular and well placed. ... ... More than a few analysts suspect the Houthis may have had inside assistance for a growing Saudi domestic insurgency.

"More than a few analysts suspect the Houthis may have had inside assistance for a growing Saudi domestic insurgency."

A few analysts suspect the Houthis may have had Mossad assistance ...

Fixed it for ya.

Investors around the globe are increasingly disinclined to invest in the rising political risk swirling around Saudi and MBS.  They have serious doubts about any chance of objective corporate governance of Aramco. Its broadly seen as MBS’ piggy bank.  Such concerns clearly don’t worry his wealthier subjects, who are apparently delighted to have been offered the opportunity to invest upwards of $100mm. The alternative was to spend some time in basement of the luxury Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh.  As a comment in one paper suggested: it’s hard to resist an  equity salesman carrying a bone-saw.

MBS is determined to justify his own $2 trillion Aramco valuation. He and Adam Neumann of WeWork really should spend some time together to discuss delusional pricing

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:42:39 pm »

Wed, 09/18/2019 - 11:21

Saudis Reveal 'Evidence' Attacks "Unquestionably Sponsored" By Iran With Drone & Missile Debris

Agelbert NOTE: as the comments below evidence, NOBODY is being suckered this time by the old false flag attack excuse (i.e. TREASONOUS SCAM) for war for Empire AND an oil price BOOST.

You need to understand that wars of these types have NEVER actually been "FOR" oil, but for the purpose of raising the price of oil by limiting access to it.

It's called creating an artificial scarcity. It's a routine FRAUD the US Government has been actively perpetrating from Nixon on to Bush daddy to Shrub to Obama to Trump. The rinse and repeat (i.e. when the price of crude is threatening Big Oil Government Welfare Queen profits too much)🦕😈🦖 oil price shock SCAM is getting so dog eared, more and more people are seeing right through it.
Notice how the tables are roped off, so no one can actually inspect any of the parts. And the nice cards written in microsoft word english on the tables blaming iran.

The people running these ops are as dumb as the sheep believing them.

Saudis bomb a school bus filled with children, weapon was made in USA- Nothing happens. 

Saudis torture and dismember an American journalist- Nothing happens.

Saudis go to flight school and buy airline tickets

"...renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Khashoggi "entered (the consulate) and he got out after a few minutes or one hour."

"The attack was launched from the north and was unquestionably sponsored by Iran."

and, too many more to count...

"Jefferey Epstein committed suicide in his cell."

"Two planes knocked down three skyscrapers"

I'm having visual flashbacks of Colin Powell at the U.N. with pictures of Saddam's trailers for making chemical weapons. Or so he said.

Good timing on this whole "bombing", I was starting to think fuel was getting affordable.

My mobile phone gives me high accuracy guidance (most of the time!) using Google Maps - does that make my mobile phone a sphisticated weapon?


Vince Clortho
So the US assets in the Persian Gulf/ Saudi Region were not only unable to stop the attack, they were also unable to determine the launch point, or track the incoming missiles ...

And Khashoggi accidentally fell on a chainsaw.

Assad gassed his own people.

Israel is a democracy.

America cares about human rights.

Where is yellow cake?And aluminum **** tube?

Read more:


Agelbert BONUS NOTE: Here's a bit more irrefutable historical background for those who think I am into "conspiracy theories" about the Big Oil influence on US belligerence:

There is one hell of a lot of AMERICAN EMPIRE history (i.e. SUCKERING Sadam Hussein into invading Kuwait so the Saudis could be SUCKERED into backing a U.S. invasion of Iraq AND allow U.S. troops to have bases in Saudi Arabia - Cheney did ALL OF THAT!) too many people do not know.

There is a secret agreement between the USA and the Saudis going back to 1972. It was deliberately (i.e. ILLEGALLY) gamed BY Bush Daddy and Cheney in order to SUCKER the Saudis.

Did you know that Bush daddy was the evil bastard who ACTUALLY ordered those Middle East Oil fields invaded? It's true. All this was part of strategy by Bush daddy to keep the M.I.C. budget FAT (see: new "enemy" to replace the USSR). Bush junior kept up the inertia for the new "enemy", the "Arab terrorists", by authorizing 9/11, PERIOD.

All that deliberate warmongering to keep the huge military swag going is bad enough, but that bloated military polluting activity is also degrading the biosphere and causing multiple species extinctions from GHG caused Catastrophic climate Change! The PENTAGON M.I.C. is the BIGGEST POLLUTER in the USA! These greedy stupid bastards have to be stopped or we are ALL DEAD!

Go to the 11:23 time mark to learn about how that skullduggery went down, and WHY:

From Desert Storm to Donald Trump: Daniel Sheehan 2019 Class #2

Learn more:

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2019, 12:24:17 pm »

PUBLISHED TUE, SEP 17 2019  12:59 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, SEP 17 2019  12:29 PM EDT

Agelbert NOTE: Indeed, the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Cui Bono in regard to a sudden, oh, so convenient, spike in the price of crude oil is rather in-our-faces BLATANT!

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 14, 2019, 04:16:26 pm »

Major Saudi Arabia oil facilities hit by Houthi drone strikes

The price of 🦕🦖 oil is too low. Time for a convenient excuse to raise it. Throw in a convenient excuse to keep using U.S. tax dollars to fund Saudi murder and mayhem in Yemen while you are at it. Don't worry about the FACT that it's an Israeli drone. just paint a Houthi flag on it and you are good to go. 😈

Refinery fires are good for the oil business, especially if you can use a false flag drone attack to boost war profits while you are are it. It isn't the 9/11 bonanza we got back in 2001 but it'll have to do. Besides, it's close enough to September 11 for us to link it though our media monkeys to the "Ayrab Terrorists did 9/11" reality perception distortion propaganda effort.

We Big Oil loyal servants of humanity need to always frame our planet polluting refineries as the "good guys".  We wouldn't want anyone celebrating less pollution due to a closed refinery, so we have to make people value them and feel sorry for refinery fire damage instead. This Orwellian stuff really works! 

By the way, make sure those Greenpeace Terrorists terrorizing that bridge near Houston get jailed. They are a threat to Big Oil = National Security.

More than a dozen Greenpeace activists were arrested Thursday after partially shutting the Houston Ship Channel by suspending themselves from a bridge spanning the key oil route in protest against the fossil fuel industry.

We are so-o-o-o-o SCREWED by this fascist 🦕🦖 hydrocarbon hellspawn dystopia.

Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 28, 2019, 08:31:24 am »

“Blackstone is committed to responsible environmental stewardship,” the company said in a statement.

Steve Schwarzman, a Top Financier of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, Is a Driving Force Behind Amazon Deforestation

TWO BRAZILIAN FIRMS owned by a top donor to President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are significantly responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest, carnage that has developed into raging fires that have captivated global attention. 

The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans. The shipping terminal at Miritituba, deep in the Amazon in the Brazilian state of Pará, allows growers to load soybeans on barges, which will then sail to a larger port before the cargo is shipped around the world. 

The Amazon terminal is run by Hidrovias do Brasil, a company that is owned in large part by Blackstone, a major U.S. investment firm. Another Blackstone company, Pátria Investimentos, owns more than 50 percent of Hidrovias, while Blackstone itself directly owns an additional roughly 10 percent stake. Blackstone co-founder and CEO Stephen Schwarzman is a close ally of Trump and has donated millions of dollars to McConnell in recent years. 

“Blackstone is committed to responsible environmental stewardship,” the company said in a statement. “This focus and dedication is embedded in every investment decision we make and guides how we conduct ourselves as operators. In this instance, while we do not have operating control, we know the company has made a significant reduction in overall carbon emissions through lower congestion and allowed the more efficient flow of agricultural goods by Brazilian farmers.”

The port and the highway have been deeply controversial in Brazil, and were subjects of a 2016 investigation by The Intercept Brasil. Hidrovias announced in early 2016 that it would soon begin exporting soybeans trucked from the state of Mato Grosso along the B.R.-163 highway. The road was largely unpaved at the time, but the company said it planned to continue improving and developing it. In the spring of 2019, the government of Jair Bolsonaro, elected in fall 2018, announced that Hidrovias would partner in the privatization and development of hundreds of miles of the B.R.-163. Developing the roadway itself causes deforestation, but, more importantly, it helps make possible the broader transformation of the Amazon from jungle to farmland.

The roadway, B.R. 163, has had a marked effect on deforestation. After the devastation that began under the military dictatorship and accelerated through the 1970s and ’80s, the rate of deforestation slowed, as a coalition of Indigenous communities and other advocates of sustaining the forest fought back against the encroachment. The progress began turning back in 2014, as political tides shifted right and global commodity prices climbed. Deforestation began to truly spike again after the soft coup that ousted President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party in 2016. The right-wing government that seized power named soy mogul Blairo Maggi, a former governor of Mato Grosso, as minister of agriculture.

Yet even as deforestation had been slowing prior to the coup, the area around the highway was being destroyed. “Every year between 2004 and 2013 — except 2005 — while deforestation in Amazonia as a whole fell, it increased in the region around the B.R.-163,” the Financial Times reported in September 2017. That sparked pushback from Indigenous defenders of the Amazon. In March, Hidrovias admitted that its business had been slowed by increasing blockades on B.R. 163, as people put their bodies in front of the destruction. Still, the company is pushing forward. Hidrovios recently said that, thanks to heavy investment, it planned to double its grain shipping capacity to 13 million tons.


Map: Soohee Cho/The Intercept

The Amazon, where a record number of fires have been raging, is the world’s largest rainforest. It absorbs a significant amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to the climate crisis. The Amazon is so dense in vegetation that it produces something like a fifth of the world’s oxygen supply. The moisture that evaporates from the Amazon is important form farmlands not just in South America, but also in the U.S. Midwest, where it falls to the earth as rain. Protection of the Amazon, 60 percent of which is in Brazil, is crucial to the continued existence of civilization as we know it. 


On the Front Lines of Bolsonaro’s War on the Amazon, Brazil’s Forest Communities Fight Against Climate Catastrophe

The effort to transform the Amazon from a rainforest into a source of agribusiness revenue is central to the conflict, and linked to the fires raging out of control today. The leading edge of the invasion of the jungle is being cut by grileiros, or “land-grabbers,” who operate outside the law with chainsaws. The grileiros then sell the newly cleared land to agribusiness concerns, whose harvest is driven on the highway to the terminal, before being exported. Bolsonaro has long called for the Amazon to be turned over to agribusiness, and has rapidly defanged agencies responsible for protecting it, and empowered agribusiness leaders intent on clearing the forest. The land-grabbers have become emboldened.

“With Bolsonaro, the invasions are worse and will continue to get worse,” Francisco Umanari, a 42-year-old Apurinã chief, told Alexander Zaitchik,for a recent story in The Intercept. “His project for the Amazon is agribusiness. Unless he is stopped, he’ll run over our rights and allow a giant invasion of the forest. The land grabs are not new, but it’s become a question of life and death.”

Fires in the Amazon have been producing devastation described as unprecedented, many of them lit by farmers and others looking to clear land for cultivation or grazing. Bolsonaro initially dismissed the fires as unworthy of serious attention. Several weeks ago, Bolsonaro fired a chief government scientist for a report on the rapid escalation of deforestation under Bolsonaro’s administration, claiming that the numbers were fabricated. 

Beginning with the military dictatorship in Brazil, when agribusiness was fully empowered, roughly a fifth of the jungle was destroyed by the mid-2000s. If the Amazon loses another fifth of its mass, it is at risk of a phenomenon known as dieback, where the forest becomes so dry that a vicious, cascading cycle takes over, and it becomes, as Zaitchik writes, “beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret.”

The Blackstone Group Chairman & CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman is interviewed by Maria Bartiromo during her "Mornings with Maria Bartiromo" program, on the Fox Business Network, in New York Friday, April 27, 2018. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwarzman is interviewed on the Fox Business Network on April 27, 2018.

Photo: Richard Drew/AP

SCHWARZMAN, A FOUNDER of Blackstone, owns roughly a fifth of the company, making him one of the world’s richest men. In 2018, he was paid at least $568 million, which was, in fact, a drop from the $786 million he made the year before. He has been generous toward McConnell and Trump with that wealth. In 2016, he gave $2.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC and put Jim Breyer, McConnell’s billionaire brother-in-law, on the board of Blackstone. Two years later, Schwarzman kicked in $8 million to McConnell’s Super PAC. 

Blackstone employees have given well over $10 million to McConnell and his Super PAC over the years, making them the biggest source of direct financing over McConnell’s career. McConnell’s Senate campaign declined to comment.

Schwarzman is a close friend and adviser to Trump, and served as the chair of his Strategic and Policy Forum until it fell apart in the wake of the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, in which Trump famously praised “very fine people, on both sides.” In December 2017, as the final details of the GOP tax cut were being ironed out, Schwarzman hosted a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for Trump. Some of the president’s dinner companions complained about the tax bill, and days later, Trump slashed the top percentage rate in the final package from 39.6 to 37. 

In recent months, the Sackler family, whose members founded and own the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, have become pariahs for their role in facilitating the opioid crisis and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Schwarzman’s contributions to the destruction of the Amazon, which stands between humanity and an uninhabitable planet, may ultimately render him as socially untouchable as the Sacklers, given the scale of the fallout from the destruction of the rainforest. 

IN DEFENSE OF the project, a Blackstone spokesperson noted that it had been approved by the International Finance Corporation, an affiliate of the World Bank, and that the IFC had determined that the project would, in fact, reduce carbon emissions. Blackstone also forwarded a statement that it credited to Hidrovias, which also emphasized the support of the IFC:

Hidrovias has always worked within the highest Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) standards, constantly evaluated by audits from international multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank – IFC (International Finance Corporation). In addition, Hidrovias maintains all the environmental licenses required by the competent authorities.

The IFC has financed some of the world’s most environmentally destructive projects, so its endorsement in itself is not particularly persuasive. But even on its own terms, the IFC’s study of the Blackstone project calls the project’s sustainability into question. Transporting soy or grain by waterway is indeed a less carbon-intensive method of transport, the IFC correctly noted in its report. But, it went on, that assessment doesn’t take into account the reality that “the construction of the Miritituba port, close to still-intact areas of the Amazon forest, is likely to lower transport costs for farmers and thereby accelerate conversion of natural habitats into agricultural areas, particularly for soy production.”

The project is OK, the bank argued, because Hidrovias and its clients can be trusted to be responsible, and that “the Miritituba port is being purpose-built to handle soy traded only by responsible traders who are sensitive to the preservation of natural habitats.” The bank assured that “100% of the company’s transport capacity in the North System is contracted to large trading companies, which observe high levels of governance and abide by the Amazon Soy Moratorium. The Moratorium, which prohibits purchasing soy produced on illegally deforested lands, was originally negotiated in 2006 between the big traders, Greenpeace, and Brazilian authorities. It has been renewed on a yearly basis since then.”

The moratorium, however, is only as strong as the government’s ability to monitor it. Proving that soy was grown on illegally deforested lands is highly difficult, as land-grabbers move quickly to clear forest and sell the newly cleared land to ranchers or agribusiness operators who quickly put it into cultivation and later claim that they had no way of knowing it was illegally deforested. The scheme also presumes that the government is interested in regulating agribusiness; the Bolsonaro administration has been quite explicit that it is not interested in doing so, putting top agribusiness officials in key posts, while defunding regulatory agencies.

And even if it were somehow true that all of the soy shipped from the Hidrovias port met all the requirements of the moratorium, commodity markets are fluid. A new port for the big traders eases congestion and lowers transportation costs elsewhere for smaller traders, thereby encouraging more development and more cultivation. (The IFC noted that Hidrovias promised to watch its soy clients closely: “HDB will establish and maintain internal procedures to review clients’ compliance with all provisions of Amazon Soy Moratorium or any other relevant legal requirements aimed at preventing trade in soy produced in illegally deforested areas. If the purpose of the port or the mix of HDB’s clients changes, the company will advise IFC of such changes and may be required to undertake further due diligence to ensure that these do not lead to undesirable indirect impacts.”)

The final justification the IFC made for the project comes down to incrementalism. Other development is also happening, the bank noted, so this single port can only cause so much harm. It concluded that “the port’s incremental contribution to the overall reduction of transport costs is judged to be marginal, given the myriad other factors (paving of B.R.-163, installation of other ports in Miritituba district, etc.) that are contributing to development in the region.” Bolsonaro has plans to pave significantly more roads in the Amazon that have otherwise been impassable much of the year, a project made feasible by international financing.

Of course, Hidrovias is also involved in paving B.R.-163 and other development projects in the region. Those projects, such as the paving of the highway, have additional indirect — though entirely predictable — consequences, as they spur side roads that make previously difficult-to-reach areas of the Amazon accessible for mining, logging, or further deforestation.

A Blackstone spokesperson noted that the fund only owns 9.3 percent of Hidrovias. But that ignores the 55.8 percent of Hidrovias that is owned by Pátria Investimentos. On Hidrovias’s website, Pátria is described as a company “in partnership with Blackstone,” and it is known in the financial industry to be a Blackstone company. A November 2018 article in Private Equity News about Bolsonaro’s election was headlined: “Blackstone’s Pátria: Brazilian Democracy is Not in Danger.”

It quoted the company’s chief economist assuring the public that “descent into authoritarianism is exceedingly unlikely.” That prediction has not borne out terribly well, but Blackstone appears to remain a strong supporter of Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president traveled to New York in May to be honored at a gala, which was sponsored by Refinitiv — a company majority-owned by Blackstone.

Ryan Grim is the author of “We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement.”

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2019, 09:41:02 pm »

How the 🦕 U.S. (MOSTLY 👹🦖TEXAS! 🤬) Will Destroy the Planet With No Help From 🐉 Bozonaro

Collapse Chronicles
Published on Aug 22, 2019

In today's Chronicle of the Collapse, I turn once again to Common Dreams, where I read the article titled "U.S. Set to Blow Other Countries Away With 'Staggering' Scale of New Oil and Gas Production."

If you would like to support Collapse Chronicles, there are several ways to do just that. You can hit the Paypal Donate icon on the homepage, or send a Paypal donation through collapsechronicles@gmail.com

If you would like to become a Patron of Collapse Chronicles, here is a link to my Patreon page:

If you would like to send a check or money order to support this channel, you can email me at collapsechronicles@gmail.com.
Thank you!
Category News & Politics

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 23, 2019, 08:30:26 pm »


AUG 23, 2019, 8:00 AM


If you want to look for a precedent, examine how the U.S. 🦍forcibly annexed Hawaii.

The "vast majority" of native Hawaiians opposed U.S. annexation, but that didn't stop Hawaii from becoming "the first sovereign nation to become a casualty of America's imperial outreach." CREDIT: DE AGOSTINI PICTURE LIBRARY / GETTY

One of the most unexpected turns of Donald Trump’s presidency came this week, when revelations spilled out about the president’s serious consideration of the purchase Greenland from Denmark. According to the Washington Post, senior administration officials mulled possibly offering some $600 million in annual subsidies to the Danish territory, alongside a “large one-time payment” to Denmark for the transfer. Trump even joked about trying to swap Greenland for Puerto Rico, the latter of which remains an American territory.

The idea, at least as of right now, remains a farce, and isn’t yet a tragedy. However, there’s a clear historic legacy Trump’s tapped into — one that reaches directly into America’s Gilded Age of imperialism, buttressed by clear strains of white supremacy and neo-colonialism.

Greenland, after all, would be far from the first island acquisition Washington lawmakers havs pursued. During the 1850s, the U.S. began its run of island-based imperialism through a series of annexations of so-called Guano Islands, a series of Caribbean and Pacific outposts Washington could use to harvest guano — bird droppings — as fertilizer.

Over the years, the portfolio of islands continued to accrue. An 1899 agreement with Germany brought the American Samoa island chain to the U.S. The Spanish-American War landed the U.S. Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. And while American attempts — stemming especially those based out of the slave-holding South — to annex Cuba eventually faltered, the U.S. managed to further cement its Caribbean holdings with the purchase of the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1917.

None of these holdings, of course, came with the consent of the governed. Rather, they were the fruits of agreements between Washington and Madrid, or Washington and Berlin, or Washington and Copenhagen. And that lack of consent from local populations immediately — and sometimes violently — manifested itself. The American acquisition of the Philippines, for instance, rapidly morphed into the so-called Philippine Insurrection — a Filipino war for independence, in essence. As the “most careful study” of the American-Filipino War found, “about 775,000 Filipinos died because of the war,” with Americans torturing, and setting up concentration camps for, Filipinos along the way.

This isn’t the first time concentration camps have appeared on American soil

Not that there would have been much reason to consent to American annexation at the time, after all. Puerto Ricans had to wait nearly twenty years to obtain formal American citizenship, while those in Guam — annexed to the U.S. only when Americans explained to their Spanish counterparts on the island that Washington and Madrid were, in fact, at war — had to wait over a half-century for American citizenship to finally come to them. And American Samoans are still waiting.

There’s no indication Greenlanders would be any different. With the island moving toward ever-greater autonomy from Denmark, the likely next step for Greenland would be outright independence, rather than American territorial status. As Paul Musgrave recently wrote in Foreign Policy, “Right now, there’s reason to think that Greenland may well be on a path to full independence, not simply switching one protectorate for another.” And as others have pointed, the move to sell the territory to Washington would be akin to the U.S. auctioning off, say, Texas or Arizona to the highest bidder — without residents’ consent.

The idea of "selling Greenland" makes as much sense as Trump "selling Texas" or better yet "selling Arizona" with the Hopi and Navajo nations resident there. If we deeply reject the premise of colonialism then we have to reject the language of it too. - Naunihal Singh (@naunihalpublic) August 21, 2019

Kingdom come

None of these incidents of island imperialism, though, are comparable to the egregious conquest the U.S. brought about in its best-known island annexation to date: Hawaii.

By the early 19th century, the Hawaiian kingdom was already warding off multiple Western colonizing powers, all eager to access the islands. The appeal was easy to see: Not only did Hawaii’s position in the central Pacific present an ideal location for everything from whaling ships to coaling stations, but its climate proved fruitful for a sugar industry that, in time, blossomed into one of the world’s greatest. As such, French, German, British, and Russian diplomats eyed the islands as a potential jewel in a Pacific crown.

All of these countries, it’s worth noting, recognized Hawaii as a sovereign, independent nation — as did the U.S. Lorenz Gonschor, who received his doctorate at the University of Hawaii, told ThinkProgress that dozens of countries carried on diplomatic relations with Hawaii, far outpacing other nominally independent North American regions like Texas.

Texas' independence was recognized by five others: US, UK, France, Belgium, & Netherlands. Hawaii, meanwhile, had diplomatic relations with: pic.twitter.com/v8wyd5j7rn
— Casey Michel 🇰🇿 (@cjcmichel) January 11, 2017

Still, those diplomatic relations did little to stop the U.S. from pursuing annexation — regardless of how native Hawaiians felt. By 1887, American missionaries and businessmen had accrued sufficient power that, backed by an armed militia, they managed to force the Hawaiian monarch to rewrite the country’s constitution. The so-called “Bayonet Constitution” earned its name from the fact that the Hawaiian monarch was forced, as National Geographic wrote, to consent to the new constitution “at gunpoint.” It was, added historian Steven Hahn, a “successful coup” — one that was finalized with the “goal of annexation” in mind.

A few years later, the process continued. As the University of Hawaii’s Davianna McGregor wrote, American minister John Stevens conspired in 1893 “with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of [Hawaii], including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawaii.” Stevens and a U.S. naval representative sent over 160 “armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation,” with the U.S. then proceeding to recognize the conspirators as Hawaii’s lawful government. The new government ignored U.S. President Grover Cleveland’s request to restore Hawaii’s monarch, Queen Liliʻuokalani, to the throne. Instead, they forced her to “sign a statement of abdication” — a statement she later renounced.

As 🦍 Teddy Roosevelt thundered, “We ought to take Hawaii, in the interests of the White race.

Shortly thereafter, a massive petition drive began circulating among native Hawaiians opposing American annexation. Thousands of native Hawaiians put their names forward resist American acquisition. As Julia Siler wrote in Lost Kingdom, her overview of the annexation, the “vast majority” of native Hawaiians signed the petition, many of them “don[ning] black armbands in protest.”

But by then, the momentum toward American annexation was impossible to slow. In Washington, annexation fever — buoyed by outright white supremacy — gripped the capital. As Teddy Roosevelt thundered, “We ought to take Hawaii, in the interests of the White race.”

In 1898, the Americans formalized their annexation of the islands, holding a formal transfer ceremony in Hawaii itself. But even that event came with clear opposition from the native population; as one observer said, the band of native Hawaiians slated to perform at the event “threw away their instruments and fled around the corner out of sight and hearing… Some wept audibly and were not ashamed.”

All told, added Siler, “1.8 million acres of land now worth billions of dollars was seized from native Hawaiians and claimed by American businessmen… Hawaiians lost their country, the first sovereign nation to become a casualty of America’s imperial outreach.” The rank imperialism behind the annexation, though, was too much for some even in Washington to stomach. As Cleveland would write, “Hawaii is ours… as I contemplate the means used to complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair.”

Back in Hawaii, the outrage was just as tangible. Yet again — in a nod to Trump’s musings about purchasing Greenland without any consent of Greenlanders — America had annexed a series of islands without bothering to ask the inhabitants for their thoughts.

Might, to Washington at least, made right. As the deposed Hawaiian queen would write, “Time may wear off the feeling of injury by and by — but my dear flag — the Hawaiian flag — that a strange flag should wave over it. May heaven look down on these [Americans responsible] and punish them for their deeds.”


Agelbert Hawaiian historical NOTE: The above article is correct, but, in regard to Hawaii, it stops at 1898. There is another, even more low down despicable bit of Imperial series of activities by the U.S. in regard to Hawaiian "statehood".

Do YOU think that Hawaiians "voted" to become a U.S. State? If you do, you are the victim of Imperial BULLSHIT. Hawaii became the 50th state on August 21 1959, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed its statehood bill.

Here's the part you did not learn in high school (OR COLLEGE!) American IMPERIAL history. The, oh, so democratic idea was that the kindly U.S. 😇 would ask the Hawaiians, in a plebiscite (i.e. a vote by voting age people living in Hawaii), if they wanted to become a State.

The REASON(S) the U.S. wanted Hawaii to become a state had everything to do with Corporate agricultural products and, of course, having a place the Japanese bombed to station a lot of warships. The Hawaiians understood that perfectly.

The average (happy talk propagandized)  person in the continental USA understood pineapples and Pearl Harbor, period. What they were given the thorough mushroom treatment about was the FACT that the governments of the world were being pressured to de-colonize. The U.S., in customary hypocritical fashion, was Johnny-on-the spot to "urge" France, England, Germany, (and so on) to "free" all their colonies in the name of "democracy" .

BUT, the very same U.S. was activly demonizing, jailing and killing pro-indepence movement supporters in Puerto Rico and Hawaii (there weren't enough people in Alaska to make much noise about independence, but the natives there did NOT want statehood - Alaskan "votes" were already rigged by big oil, so statehood there was every bit as much a done deal as it would be for Greenland, if Trump's 🦀Hydrocarbon 🦕🦖 and Mineral Mining ☠️ Havoc dream comes true.).

It just didn't look good on the world stage for the U.S. to continue lording it over Puerto Rico and Hawaii, so the old "democracy" trick was called upon. In Puerto Rico, it took the form of the "Free Associated State" (see: Colonial PIG LIPSTICK) through a "plebiscite" every now and then, of course.

In Hawaii, the U.S. was in a hurry. This is how it was done.

1. A pelbiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

2. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

3.. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

4. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

5. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

6. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said  .

7. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

8. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said .

9. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said NO.

10. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. They said no.

11. Shortly thereafter, another plebiscite was held so Hawaiians could decide if the wanted Statehood. The turnout for this ELEVENTH "PLEBISCITE", which had been going down for each subsequent "plebiscite", was the lowest of all. A majority of those who voted in this one wanted statehood. "Democracy" won. The USA gracefully agreed to the "enthusiastic" request by Hawaiians to get a place on Old Glory. Colonies? What colonies?  The USA ain't got no colonies. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 21, 2019, 01:17:53 pm »

I just can't imagine why Trumplethinskin would be miffed at Denmark, it being that he said he was "not interested" in building a Trump Tower (or doing anything else ) in Greenland...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 20, 2019, 06:00:34 pm »

I read the article. the citation at the bottom,

f you already saw that one coming too then kick back and relax with this short article suggesting that Denmark buy the US: ‘If Denmark’s bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. “We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation,” the spokesperson said.’

Is from an Andy Borowitz recent satire piece.


Yeah, I figured it was satire. Some great ideas have been proposed in jest. This is one of them.
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 20, 2019, 05:49:54 pm »

I read the article. the citation at the bottom,

f you already saw that one coming too then kick back and relax with this short article suggesting that Denmark buy the US: ‘If Denmark’s bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. “We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation,” the spokesperson said.’

Is from an Andy Borowitz recent satire piece.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 20, 2019, 04:30:11 pm »

For AG:


I read in the Palmer Report that Trumplethinskin tried to make a joke about his interest in Greenland by claiming he was not planning on building a Trump Tower there. Well, for one of those few times in Mr. Trump's life, he was actually telling the truth. He 🦀 and his 🦕🦖 hydrocarbon industry & 🐉 minerals mining polluters 'R' US OWNERS were never planning to build a Trump tower there. Below, please find, what his plans, which have not changed, regardless of his baloney rhetoric about "no longer being interested in Greenland", ARE:

Denmark may have a plan to deal with Trump's 🐉🦕🦖 plan (see below).

Tue, 08/20/2019 - 15:20

Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank


If you already saw that one coming too then kick back and relax with this short article suggesting that Denmark buy the US: ‘If Denmark’s bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. “We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation,” the spokesperson said.’

read more:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 19, 2019, 04:55:15 pm »

The above article is an excellent example of the reality of how untrustworthy our government crooks and liars, and the news media lackeys that carry BULLSHIT water for them, are. The "5 questions about Greenland and Trump's 🦀 interest" displays this disingenuous BULLSHIT media technique.

Among those five questions about Trump's 🦀 interest in Greenland, the glaringly obvious GIGANTIC ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM (NOT INCLUDED) QUESTION IS: If Global Warming is, AS TRUMP HAS CLAIMED, a "hoax cooked up by the Chinese or Climate Scientists looking for funding", WhyTF is Trump 🦀 interested in CASHING IN ON THE MELTING OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET FROM 🦕🦖 HYDROCARBON BURNING CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE ⁉️


And furthermore, the news media DOES NOT want we-the-people to CALL TRUMP ON HIS BULLSHIT, so they cook up a clever five question DISTRACTION from the FACT that Trump and his 🦕🦖 HYDROCARBON HELLSPAWN OWNERS are doing EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to accelerate Catastrophic Climate Change through global warming, PERIOD.

A world of trouble is no longer at our doorstep; it's in what has been transformed from the living room to the dying room.   

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 18, 2019, 03:04:42 pm »

The Right Gives   Corporations the Help It Denies Poor Immigrants of Color

By Sonali Kolhatkar —  The administration announces rules that would deny green cards to many migrants who use Medicaid, food stamps or other public assistance.

Read more

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 17, 2019, 11:24:08 pm »

Trump Endangers the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act
August 16, 2019

The protection of threatened species will now be weighed against the economic benefit their extinction might mean. Meanwhile, states would no longer be able to review the impact of projects on water quality, in accordance with the decades-old the Clean Water Act

Story Transcript

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network.

Recently, the Trump administration has announced a twofer: a swing at the Clean Water Act and a whack at the Endangered Species Act. There are proposals aimed at weakening the laws that are now staples of the federal environmental review process that were ushered in during the Nixon era.

For the Clean Water Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced a shortening of the time period for regulatory review of major projects to a time period of no more than one year for states and tribes. It also allows the federal agencies to override state’s decisions on water issues to deny permits for projects in some situations. And for the Endangered Species Act, just days later, the Trump administration announced that the US Department of Interior finalized a rule calling on the federal government to weigh economic factors before categorizing a species as endangered or threatened, despite what the science may say about the matter. Further, those species listed as threatened will no longer have the same level of safeguards as those who are endangered.

But what will this mean in action in real life for environmental and climate protections? Well, we have some guests to talk about these seismic shifts in the environmental regulatory landscape. One of them is Ryan Shannon, a staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. Welcome, Ryan.

RYAN SHANNON: Thanks for having me.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And the other is Elizabeth Klein, Deputy Director of the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law. Welcome, Elizabeth.


JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Thank you both for joining me. So let’s start, Elizabeth, with the Clean Water Act. I want to ask, the compliance with the act, it’s a routine part of federal environmental reviews for major projects. What exactly is the Trump administration’s proposal? What are they changing and what will the potential impact be if this change is adopted?

ELIZABETH KLEIN: Well, what they’re considering here is really a fundamental shift in how water quality certifications have been reviewed and processed by states. The Clean Water Act sets out a pretty clear process that’s been used for decades now that allows states, actually gives them the authority to ensure that major infrastructure projects like pipelines or other projects that might be on the landscape for years and years, even decades, won’t impair the water quality of bodies of water in their states. The act is very clear that states have the authority to review requests for these certifications.

And what the administration is doing is really a full frontal assault on the states’ authority to review and decide whether or not projects are going to impair water quality. And so they are shortening the timeframe. You mentioned a year. In fact, the EPA wants to make it possible for certain agencies, like the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to shorten that timeframe to as little as six months. They want to be able to exercise an amount of federal oversight that’s really inappropriate and reach in and decide whether or not they think the state has made a good decision on whether or not a project will impair water quality, which is inconsistent with the act and just decades of implementation of this process.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And the proposed changes to the Clean Water Act would also impact tribal authority. Could you explain a little bit how that would change if this rule is adopted?

ELIZABETH KLEIN: Well, what they’re trying to do, again, is really reach into these processes that states, and in some limited cases tribes, have the authority to also issue these water quality certifications. The federal government is trying to impose a process where they could, for instance, decide that a state or a tribe’s review of whether a project meets the water quality certifications of an area in fact does or does not do that and they are going to inject apparently their views on whether or not the project is something that should trump the water quality of these bodies of water. So again, it’s really – it’s an assault on the whole system of cooperative federalism that had been set up by the act that gives the authority to states and tribes, the ones who are actually on the ground and understand the bodies of water that are going to be affected. It really trumps their authority to do what they have done for years, which is determine whether projects are going to impair water quality.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: That pun I’m sure is completely intended. So now over to you, Ryan. Let me ask you. The Trump administration said that economic factors will now be a major part of its endangered categorization process in regard to the Endangered Species Act. Is there any legitimacy to the claims of negative economic impact to designating an area that contains a threatened or an endangered species, that was the reason that was cited that this change, this rule change, would be implemented? Is there any legitimacy to that claim?

RYAN SHANNON: No. There really is none, and we should be clear about what this exactly is proposing to do. What they’re intending to do is inject economic considerations into what is fundamentally a scientific decision. Is a species threatened or endangered? And Congress was very clear when it wrote the Endangered Species Act and when they amended it, that listing decisions are solely based on the best available science. That amendment to the Endangered Species Act actually came about because the Reagan administration tried to do the very same thing and inject economic considerations into the listing process. And what this is going to do is either result in listing decisions that are undermined by undue economic considerations. Or at best, it’s going to bring the listing process to a grinding halt, as the service goes through these costly and time-consuming economic impacts analysis.

Now, we should be clear that there’s two pieces. There’s the listing of an endangered or threatened species, and then there’s the designation of critical habitat. When designating critical habitat, they can take into account the economic decisions and then they may decide to exclude certain areas from a critical habitat decision. But when they’re considering listing a species, it’s very, very clear that it’s only based on the best available science and economic considerations play no role. So that begs the question, if economic considerations are entirely irrelevant to the listing process, why do them at all?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And that does bring us to the next question, which is a question I want to ask both of you. For both of these rules changes, what’s the motive for these rules changes? In other words, cui bono, who benefits? And how strictly enforced where these laws and regulations? And did they ever serve to slow down federal project proposals, which is another excuse that has been used, or I should say another justification, that has been used from making these claims? Elizabeth, what do you have to say about that?

ELIZABETH KLEIN: Well, honestly the proposal to strip and fundamentally weaken the authority of states and tribes to review water quality certification applications – I’m not exactly sure who benefits. If I were a proponent of a large infrastructure project, for instance, if I was working for an energy company or for a housing development or for any of the large infrastructure projects you can think of that might affect or impair water quality in some way, I would be very concerned about what they’re proposing here.

The proposal is fundamentally at odds with what’s in the statute itself. EPA even went so far in its proposal to suggest that it disagreed with an opinion of the Supreme Court, of all things, that the Supreme Court had gotten a decision wrong about the ability of states to decide what the scope of water quality means. And so, it’s not clear to me who this benefits. Potentially the administration thinks that this will benefit their ability to be reelected. It seems very political and separate and apart from what’s actually called for by the Clean Water Act.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And Ryan, what’s your take on this in regard to the Endangered Species Act? Who benefits from this rule change?

RYAN SHANNON: What we know for certain is that endangered and threatened species will not benefit at all from these rule changes. And then I think the folks that do benefit are David Bernhardt’s former clients. The Department of Interior right now is staffed with numerous individuals who have described endangered species as incoming Scud missiles. And Karen Budd-Falen, who’s the acting Assistant Deputy of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, once said that if given the chance, she would repeal the ESA in a heartbeat.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: So in fact, climate and environmental activists, which both of you have expressed, say that the proposed changes in the Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act could lead to expedited permits for pipelines, especially in regards to the Clean Water Act and other related infrastructure. And interestingly, EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler, who is a former fossil fuel industry lobbyist, agreed in an interesting and odd way with the environmental activists when he said in a comment, “Under President Trump, the United States has become the number one oil and gas energy producer in the world. When implemented, this proposal, the change to the Clean Water Act, will streamline the process for constructing new energy infrastructure projects that are good for American families, American workers, and the American economies.”

So clearly these rules changes are for the benefit of, at least from the administration’s perspective, the energy suppliers that want to circumvent these laws to build their infrastructures, to extract more fossil fuels from the ground and destroy our ecosystem in the process. So this brings us to the next question. Ryan, what’s the significance of the change to the act that’s calling for species categorized as threatened, which is one step below endangered, no longer receiving the same protections as species in the endangered category? What will this mean in real life and how will that be carried out if it’s adopted?

RYAN SHANNON: So what this means in real life is that species that are listed as threatened in the future, won’t receive the protections that they have received for the past 40 years. The Fish and Wildlife Service, early on in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, decided that presumptively it was going to provide all of the protections provided to endangered species, to threatened species as well. Primarily, this means that they’re protected from take. Take is a term of [inaudible], which basically means that you can’t harm, harass or kill an endangered species. And so threatened wildlife presumptively had that protection provided to them as well. Now, the act always has had this provision called the Section 4(d). And under Section 4(d), fish and wildlife was always free to issue a species-specific 4(d) rule. And that could change that blanket protection and provide certain exemptions or provisions that were intended to benefit the species— basically allow a little bit of flexibility.

So they always had that ability to provide certain flexibilities around threatened species. What this administration has decided to do is just remove the presumptive protection altogether and instead only provide protections if and when they issued these species-specific 4(d) rules. And these species-specific 4(d) rules historically have not been good for species. For instance, in 2014 there was a species-specific 4(d) rule issued for the Lesser Prairie Chicken and it effectively exempted oil and gas ranching and energy development projects from any restrictions on the Endangered Species Act. And was those very same actions that were threatening the Lesser Prairie Chicken in the first place. So you end up having a species that is listed as threatened, but doesn’t enjoy the protections that it should underneath the act.

And so going forward, threatened species just won’t receive the same kind of protections that they have in the past. These lifesaving protections that have prevented 99% of the species listed under the Endangered Species Act from going extinct. And what I think we’ll see is more and more species being listed as threatened rather than endangered, so that they do not receive the protections provided to endangered species.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And will the advent, the onset of climate change, the climate crisis as seeing the results of climate change, will that make this situation with the endangered species and threatened species, will that make the situation worse with this rule change?

RYAN SHANNON: Yes, it certainly will. I mean, we are living through the sixth mass extinction right now and more and more species are feeling the full brunt and effects of climate change. And what these rule changes do is both look to disregard climate science, the best available science. When listing a species, they seek to disregard the impact of climate. When considering listing a species as threatened, they look to disregard protecting critical habitat that is threatened because of climate change. And then also, there is a regulation that’s going to change the way that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies conduct Section 7 consultations under the act. These consultations ensure that federal agency actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, and they’ve effectively written climate change out of that process.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: So Elizabeth, it looks like many states have already stated their intent to sue the Trump administration in regard to these changes to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Do you expect more states to jump in to sue the administration, to stop the implementation of these rules in their states? And what do you see as the potential success of these actions?

ELIZABETH KLEIN: Well, state Attorneys General have really from the beginning of this administration had been clear that they’re not going to stand by and ignore the administration’s attempts to flout the law and roll back really bedrock environmental protections under a whole suite of acts— the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act. The list is long. And although there is a large number of things they’ve had to become engaged in, state AGs really are continuing to fight against what they see as unlawful rollbacks that are harmful to public health, to their constituents and to the environment. And so with respect to the Endangered Species Act, that was a final rule that’s been issued by the administration, and you saw Massachusetts Attorney General Healey and California Attorney General Becerra come out strong out of the gate and indicate that they are upset and believe that these final rules are unlawful and they will challenge them.

With respect to the Section 401 proposed rule that’s come out from the EPA, there is still a process to go through before we would get to litigation necessarily. And so I would expect a number of states to jump in with pretty forceful comments to the EPA about how they view this new proposed rule as unlawful under the Clean Water Act and an inappropriate abdication of responsibilities that have been provided to the states. If EPA chooses to ignore those comments, I would assume that there will be legal challenges down the road. But right now, we’re in a rulemaking process. And so I suppose we could always have hope that the administration will listen and come to reason and decide that this is not the direction they want to go in.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: It’s a pretty incredible state of affairs when what we have left is hope that the administration will listen to science. But that is where we are. And I want to thank both of you so much, Ryan Shannon and Elizabeth Klein, for joining me today to really dig into what could happen with these rules changes and what is happening with these rules changes to these two important pieces of environmental legislation. Thank you for joining me today, both of you.

RYAN SHANNON: Thanks for having me.


JACQUELINE LUQMAN: And thank you for watching. This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Baltimore.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 13, 2019, 09:13:54 pm »

Trump's 🦀 Profits Will Tear Web of Life ☠️ Apart!

Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Aug 13, 2019

Donald Trump and his 😈 billionaire, 🦕🦖 oil drilling buddies are trying to get rid of the Endangered species Act.

Biodiversity is the foundation on which all life depends, including human life.

Biodiversity provides for our water, food, shelters, and health. It's the air we breathe, the nutrients we take in and the soil that our food is grown on.

Now, with Trump’s attack on the Endangered Species Act, the web of life is more at risk than ever before. 😱

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 13, 2019, 06:48:30 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

Aug 12, 2019, 8:20 AM

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 10, 2019, 12:38:48 pm »

By Mike Schuler on Aug 09, 2019 06:02 pm

Trump Delay Casts Doubt on First Big U.S. Offshore Wind Farm

The 🦀 Trump 🦕🦖 administration cast the fate of the nation’s first major offshore wind farm into doubt by extending an environmental review for the $2.8 billion Vineyard Wind project off Massachusetts.

The  Interior Department has ordered an additional  ;) study of the farm, proposed by Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Interior Secretary 🦖 David Bernhardt said in an interview with Bloomberg News Friday.

🦖 Bernhardt said it’s crucial the impacts be thoroughly studied. “For offshore wind to thrive on the outer continental shelf, the federal government has to dot their I’s and cross their T’s,” he said.

Read full story...


Agelbert NOTE: This is that very same "former" ;) 🦖 Bernhardt Fossil Fuel Lobbyist who never seemed to have any concerns about the Federal Government's MASSIVE ABSENCE OF dotted I’s and crossed T’s in regard to coal mines, offshore oil plaform spills and flaring pollution, land fracking caused poisoning of groundwater and air pollution from flaring. These Hydrocarbon Hellspawn bastards are WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITES!

Bernhardt is following in the footsteps of his hero, John D. Rockefeller.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 09, 2019, 07:13:40 pm »


Friday, August 9, 2019

By Jessica Corbett

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 09, 2019, 03:45:39 pm »

Excellent comment:

Shale oil production was never anything more than a scheme to extend and pretend this version of industrial civilization.  It was a jobs program in reality, employing many thousands of workers at good wages and supporting all the restaurants and car salesmen and home builders -- all on debt. 

Without shale oil production this global economy would have realized Peak Oil is here and now and collapsed years ago.  So the gambit worked, and is still working, but apparently not for much longer, as many of us who have kept tabs on the shale industry have known all along. 

Like everything else about this global economy, it was a debt fueled fantasy, and is nearing the point where all fantasies end -- when reality reasserts itself.
Fri, 08/09/2019 - 14:04

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 03, 2019, 06:08:29 pm »


🦕 Interior secretary will be allowed to meet with 🦖 former fossil fuel clients starting this weekend  

Prior to taking the helm at the Interior Department in 2017, Secretary David Bernhardt worked as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry via the Colorado law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

When he joined the administration, he agreed to recuse himself from certain matters on ethical grounds. His pledge banned Bernhardt from decisions involving his former firm’s clients for two years. Bernhardt was also not able to meet with these companies, unless five or more other stakeholders were present, and nothing relating specifically to the companies was discussed.

But all of this is set to change on Saturday, when his recusal expires.

Read more:
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2019, 04:46:13 pm »


AUG 2, 2019, 8:00 AM


Trump is trying to kill electric cars but will kill jobs and the climate instead



Two new analyses from Bloomberg this week make clear just how bad President Donald Trump’s policies are for the domestic electric car market and U.S. workers.

In the first report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) explains that Trump’s plan to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency and emissions standards for vehicles would eliminate any federal requirement for carmakers to build electric vehicles (EVs). BNEF also explains that the deal Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW struck with California last week to avoid the full rollback will not undo most of the damage.

In the second, BNEF concluded that the rapid price drops in the cost of batteries that have driven the energy storage and EV revolutions this decade will continue for the next decade. In short, while Trump can slow adoption of high-efficiency EVs in the United States, other countries — the E.U. and especially China — will simply keep adopting them so quickly that he cannot stop the global EV revolution. All he will succeed in doing is hobble job creation and the U.S. economy.

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:46:38 pm »


JUL 31, 2019 OPINION

The Inconvenient Truth About Migration the 😈 Media Brush Off

By Joshua Cho / FAIR


Bloomberg (7/5/19) offered the victim-blaming headline “Why Roots of US Border Crisis Lie South of Mexico,” and noted that Honduras and El Salvador have among the “highest murder rates in the world.” It depicted Central American migrants as seeking economic opportunity, noting that 60 percent of the population in Honduras and Guatemala lives below the national poverty line, and characterizing those countries as “a hotbed of poverty, corruption, gang violence and extortion.”

In all these reports, the US’s contributions to the violence and corruption in Central America during the Cold War, and more recent US support for a 2009 military coup in Honduras deposing the democratically elected left-wing President Manuel Zelaya, and its funding for death squads in the country, are completely obscured. This despite the evidence (Migration Policy Institute, 4/1/06) that US-backed violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador during the Cold War “institutionalized” a migration pattern to North America that had been “very minor” beforehand.

But if these reports shrouded the connection between US 🦍 foreign policy and the “violence” and “unrelenting turmoil” in the region, they more deeply buried the connection between increasing violence and climate change.

Full article:


Agelbert NOTE: And now a word from our "loyal servants", the 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 23, 2019, 06:50:15 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

July 23, 2019


Bill 🦕 Wehrum, who resigned last month, met repeatedly with industry 🐉🦖 contacts who were clients of his former law firm while crafting significant policy for the Trump administration, including last month’s rollback of the Clean Power Plan.


Oddly though, the editorial acknowledges that the gas banning ordinance “contains a social-justice rationale” in its reference to the fact that the highest rates of asthma are located in “areas that were redlined pursuant to racist housing policies.” Yes, part of the reason to ban gas is to protect those who suffer its pollution, but no, that doesn’t mean the WSJ is going to take their health concerns to heart, as it references redlining only to hand-wave it away.

For those young or privileged enough not to know already, redlining was an explicitly racist system of structural oppression in which black Americans were deliberately denied access to the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which literally drew red lines around minority communities. As a result , economic development in those marginalized communities remains depressed, leaving property prices so low that these became obvious choices for  industry to locate dirty, polluting facilities that leave its neighbors struggle to breathe with disproportionately high rates of asthma and other ailments.

The 💵 🎩 Wall Street Journal’s editorial, however, turns a blind eye to this classic, textbook example of systemic racism. Instead the piece downplays redlining merely as “bankers once didn’t lend to the poor,” once again revealing how 😈 hands greased by 🦖 fossil fuels are awash in white supremacy.


 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:22:25 pm »

No. 89, July 18, 2019

Hello Revelator readers,

Fighting climate change often means holding people and companies responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. That's why a new collection of fossil fuel industry documents matters — it's a treasure trove of history and information freely available to journalists, lawyers, legislators and activists, as well as the public. Read all about it in our latest essay.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 15, 2019, 11:49:27 pm »

July 15, 2019
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

EPA Protects Polluters, Not People

 The Trump administration is preparing to roll out a proposal that would remove communities' ability to officially contest decisions regarding how much pollution can be released by local power plants and factories, the New York Times reports.

A draft plan, which sources tell the Times could be made public next week, would eliminate individual and community ability to appeal power plant permits to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, while preserving the right of plant owners to appeal to the board to increase pollution limits. "This is outrageous," Harvard environmental law professor Richard Lazarus told the Times. "Individuals in communities will lose a way to seek relief from pollution that has historically been very effective. But industry will still be able to seek relief to pollute more." (New York Times $)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 10, 2019, 06:21:08 pm »


JULY 5, 2019

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

Doubling Down: The Military, Big Bankers and Big Oil Are Not In Climate Denial, They Are in Control and Plan to Keep It That Way.
by RICHARD MOSER FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

“Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy….A globalized economy predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis…for tackling climate change….Little wonder then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes.”

— Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes [1]

The ruling class may be an utter failure but that is not stopping them taking aggressive action on climate change. Their chief concern: maintaining power, control and profits at all costs.

The plan is well underway and it sure ain’t the Green New Deal. Just imagine a more extreme version of the world that already exists: where healthcare is rationed; where wealth inequality strangles democracy; where austerity is a weapon of class warfare; where millions die prematurely from toxins in air and water; where war and incarceration is the solution of choice; where people are rounded up in concentration camps; where corporations rule unchallenged; where extreme weather wrecks havoc in an expanding circle of misery. The only new thing about their solution is the stench of fascism that grows ever stronger and more odious.

The Bosses Want More of the Same

When Trump and the Republicans deny climate change, when Pelosi, Pallone, Perez, Biden and Obama join with Trump in sabotaging the Green New Deal or dismissing climate action as too expensive, too dreamy, not practical or too pure — they are all bold-faced liars and frauds.

The Republicans know full well that their partners in crime — oil companies, bankers and the military brass have known about climate change for decades. And, the corporate Democrats know that these same powerful players they too represent already have a risky plan to deal with climate change. From their shared perspective, even the Democrat’s Green New Deal, despite its weaknesses, must be marginalized since it competes with the establishment’s plans for our future.

Framing   Climate Change

To maintain power they need to limit our thinking. The two most important narratives imposed on us are climate change as a “threat to national security” and as a “business opportunity” — the twin 😈 rationales for military and corporate power.  They want to focus us on how to manage the crisis, profit from it, or adapt to it, instead of opposing it.

Once framed in this way the very institutions responsible for climate change can benefit from disaster while hiding their responsibility for creating the crisis. But the military-corporate management of the crisis will undoubtedly follow the same principles that created the crisis: the costs of pollution, adaptation, endless growth and war won’t appear in the corporate ledger. Military budgets will only grow larger. The costs will be “externalized” and paid by the suffering of everyday people.

The 63 million Americans currently exposed to unsafe drinking water and the 200,000 (according to an MIT study) in the US that currently die prematurely from air pollution are just a down payment. And the US is the wealthiest country in world history. The global figure for air pollution related deaths is 5.5 million annually. The 20 million or so deaths from war since WWII are a gross outstanding debt. How is that for adaptation and management? How will our rulers plan to maintain control as the crisis deepens?

Plans? What Plans?

Unsurprisingly, the military plans to maintain its ambition for 🦍“full spectrum 👹 dominance.”  A 2014 report from the Department of Defense quotes former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel who — having previously been on the Board of Directors of Chevron and Deutsche Bank — knows how to unite big oil, big banks and big guns.

“Our coastal installations are vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, while droughts, wildfires and more extreme temperatures could threaten many of our training activities….A baseline survey to assess the vulnerability of the military’s more than 7,000 bases, installations and other facilities is nearly complete, Hagel said. “In places like the Hampton Roads region in Virginia, which houses the largest concentration of U.S military sites in the world, we see recurrent flooding today, and we are beginning work to address a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years…”

They want us to forget that it has now been proven beyond doubt that the military is the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels and largest polluter. War will continue, climate crisis be damned. Elizabeth Warren’s 2019 policy statement and the bipartisan letter sent to Trump by over 100 congress members urging Trump to make climate change a national security issue is more proof that war trumps climate. In truth, the military is caught in a crisis of its own making. As Desiree Hellegers puts it: “The US Military Poses a Significant Threat to the US Military.”[2]

While the pro-war media makes much of the military’s attempts to use alternative energy, the Pentagon failed to reach its puny 2014 goal of 5% renewable.

Similarly, Obama’s 2009 stimulus package cancelled out the effects of small green spending with an “all of the above” approach, including money for “clean coal,” record oil production and increased energy use. This pattern of “greenwashing” — minor green efforts masking major investments in fossil fuels is identical to the corporate approach.

The oil companies and big banks that make crazy money from fossil fuels also hide the truth by posing the problem as a question of proper management. Sharon Kelly reports the banker’s view of a new “business opportunity”:

“Scientific research finds that an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases…is warming the planet, posing significant risks to prosperity and growth of the global economy,” JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley wrote in a 2015 statement. “As major financial institutions…we have the business opportunity to build a more sustainable, low-carbon economy and the ability to help manage and mitigate these climate-related risks.”

So how is it that the bankrollers of climate chaos, investing  $1.9 trillion in fossil fuels just since the Paris Accords, also claim to “manage and mitigate these climate-related risks?”

According to the bankers, the problem with climate change is that it’s “posing significant risks to the prosperity and growth of the global economy.” What they will not say is that the global economy — which demands enormous fossil fuel production and consumption — is posing significant risks to the climate. The global shipping and aviation on which peak profit-making depends is, like the military, exempt from the Paris Accords. The bankers, generals, and politicians are protecting the sources of their power.

From the Gold Standard to the Oil Standard

What the bankers will not say is that billions of the dollars they trade in are “petrodollars” — as explained in this informative documentary video.  A 40-year back-room deal with the Saudis secretly recycled oil money back to the US. This deal essentially shifted the US dollar from the “gold standard” to the “oil standard.” According to Bloomberg:

The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

Buying oil in dollars is a form of imperial tribute other countries pay to the US — which is why the US insists all oil trading be in US currency. Iraq and Lybia once traded oil in other currencies. Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia and China still do. See?

Since oil props up the US Dollar, bankers have a direct interest in wars that prop up the fossil-fuel regime. It is highly unlikely that the US Dollar, the Military-Industrial-Complex or the global corporate economy can live without its addiction to oil — whatever green capitalists imagine in their wildest dreams. Some contradictions simply cannot be overcome.

Representative Democracy is Dying. Long live Direct Democracy!

It’s “power to the people” or nothing. There is no middle ground. But we will be swamped along with the middle ground if we do not have real leverage and real power. The military, the oil companies and the big banks have plans and power both. The Green Party’s Real Green New Deal is a solid plan, as are the guiding principles offered by DSA Ecosocialists, or Tulsi Gabbard’s OFF Act.

But, the straightest line to the power we need is not just good policy, more manifestos, analytical precision or electoral politics (although those things might be helpful) — it’s the sloppy, contradictory, demanding work of organizing and direct democracy. The many efforts to protect water and confront infrastructure projects are leading the way.  The Red Nation is a new voice telling classic political truths. Listen carefully. The “Red Deal” platform states:

This…will encompass the entirety of Indigenous America, which includes our non-Indigenous comrades and relatives who live here….We cannot expect politicians to do what only mass movements can do…..A mass mobilization, one like we’ve never seen before in history, is required to save this planet. Indigenous movements have always been at the forefront of environmental justice struggles…The Red Deal is not a “deal” or “bargain” with the elite and powerful. It’s a deal with the humble people of the earth; a pact that we shall strive for peace and justice and that movements for justice must come from below and to the left.

“We cannot expect politicians to do what only mass movements can do…from below and to the left.” Truth. But how?

Whether you are base-building with workers or tenants, movement-building with the peace and environmental movements or running electoral campaigns, the under-appreciated work of talking with, and listening to, everyday people is the fast track to fundamental change. Talking with everyday people is a revolutionary act. Acting with others is better yet.

A massive Harvard study tells us what we already suspect: we have the most dysfunctional, least democratic electoral system of any so-called “western democracy.” The collapse of real representation is a leading cause of crisis. To think that such a broken system can repair itself and then take on massive problems of its own making without an equally massive and equally disruptive popular movement is more than just wishful thinking — it is a profound disregard for history. Show me some evidence. How was the original New Deal created? The failure to allow moderate and popular reforms like universal health care does not bode well for government’s ability to act on climate and war — issues that strike right at the heart of the existing social order.

We have good blueprints. It’s vitally important to put demilitarization at the center of our efforts not just because the US empire is the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels or because the same military is the enforcer of the global fossil fuel regime but because understanding the connections between war and climate changes clears the way for fusion and synergy between the environmental and peace movements and movements for economic justice.

But the real question — the unanswered question — is HOW? How do we move on the climate crisis? Can we build it from the bottom up? It sure isn’t coming from the top down. Can the Green New Deal become a revolutionary reform? Ask people what they think about the Green New Deal. Where it leads is up to us.


1/ The best single source is a very well researched collection of essays The Secure and the Dispossessed: How the Military and Corporations are Shaping a Climate-Changed World edited by Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes.  Find the quote on p 234.

2/ You can see much more of this misdirection by looking at this document: “Military and National Security Leaders Urge Robust New Course on Climate Change. Or see Elizabeth Warren’s new plan for a green ;) military
Richard Moser writes at befreedom.co where this article first appeared.


Agelbert Comment: The M.I.C. 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn think they can handle Catastrophic Climate Change. They are abysmally wrong. God is NOT mocked; whatsover you sow, THAT you shall reap.

Tomorrow is Yesterday

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   

+-Recent Topics

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by Surly1
October 22, 2019, 07:58:51 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
October 22, 2019, 07:47:20 am

October 21, 2019, 09:17:36 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
October 21, 2019, 09:08:51 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 21, 2019, 08:54:38 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 06:22:40 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 03:07:34 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
October 19, 2019, 08:27:57 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 19, 2019, 05:35:46 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 18, 2019, 07:49:28 pm