I came across this video regarding something I have been concerned with for several years now. Since the late 1990's there is an increase of stratospheric aerosol engineering (SAG) spraying throughout skies of America. The days of being able to go outside, look up to see clear blue skies are gone. This is the first of many post I am doing on this issue. The intent of these posts are to shed some light on what is really going on.
Dane Wigington is the lead researcher for www.geoengineeringwatch.org and has investigated all levels of geoengineering, solar radiation management, and global ionosphere heaters like HAARP. Dane has appeared on an extensive number of interviews and films to explain the environmental dangers we face on a global level from the ongoing climate engineering assault.
Dane Wigington's website provide the best information on this topic I've found on the Internet thus far. Check it out and support their efforts to put a stop to this insanity.
This article is a result of a geoengineering conference held in 2010.
David Keith is likely the most internationally recognized geoengineer. Keith is, in my opinion, the epitome of what is wrong with an unfortunately high percentage of the scientific community. There is extreme arrogance without a shred of oversight or accountability. In so many cases there is absolutely no regard for the consequences of the experiments that the “scientists” carry out on us all in one form or another. In the 5 minute video below, David Keith’s completely cavalier approach to experimenting with life on Earth is clearly visible when I confronted him at an AAAS conference. Below this video is an “Open Letter To David Keith” which was penned by the “Chemtrails Project UK”. My thanks to this group for their well written document that can and should be used to wake the public up to David Keith and all those like him, the more exposure for the Keith letter the better.
An Open Letter to Dr. David Keith
Dr. Keith is one of the most prominent proponents of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG). In this open letter, we challenge Dr. Keith with a number of concerns regarding the SAG proposal.
Dear Dr. Keith,
I have seen your Colbert Report interview where you appear to publicise and promote the idea of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) – namely, the spraying of thousands of tonnes of toxic substances into our atmosphere as an attempt to fight global warming.
SAG, by your own admission, is expected to kill 10,000 people in the first year alone.
Of further concern is the overwhelming amount of evidence that indicates such practices are not mere proposals but are already happening in our skies. (Incidentally, as you will find in The Directive, this would not be the first time the UK population has been covertly sprayed.)
Please would you provide me your responses to each of the following questions:
Aircraft trails that persist, spread and block out the sunlight are now being witnessed on a near-daily basis in the UK (and other countries). So why are you presenting the notion of blocking out sunlight with aircraft trails as a new possibility for the future when it is something that is clearly happening already?
With the SAG proposal, why are you promoting the spraying of toxic chemicals such as sulphuric acid and/or aluminium oxide to block out our sunlight when we are already observing that the same effects – according to our government – can be achieved with natural condensation trails?
If you believe the sun cannot be blocked out by natural condensation trails, do you concur that all these persistent, spreading trails that we now witness blocking out our sunlight cannot be composed of “essentially pure ice” and are, therefore, not ordinary condensation trails?
To what extent do you believe the plethora of persistent, spreading aircraft trails that we witness today may be contributing to climate change?
If SAG were to commence officially with the spraying of thousands of tonnes of aluminium oxide, should we expect our lower atmosphere to exhibit a grey/silvery haze – much like how we already witness on a near-daily basis?
Would it also be reasonable to expect that, being military planes, the vast majority of geoengineering aircraft leaving persistent trails would not appear on real-time commercial flight-tracking services such as Flightradar24 and Plane Finder – just as we witness today?
Could we also expect that these unidentifiable planes be the ones that would often leave grid patterns in the sky – again, just like we are experiencing today?
To what extent do you believe the persistent, spreading, sunlight-blocking trails that we now commonly experience are contributing to the acknowledged phenomenon of global dimming?
As a result of spraying 20,000 tonnes of sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, you say there will be around 10,000 deaths in the first year. Do you regard that as an acceptable death rate, and – taking into account the higher incidence of terminal illnesses that will result from these activities, along with the increased amounts that will be sprayed in the following years – by how much might the annual death rate increase as time goes on?
What happened to the suggestion of putting 20,000,000 tonnes of aluminium into the atmosphere, as you proposed in 2010 at the AAAS conference in San Diego? And what would be the associated annual death rates expected in this scenario?
You admit concerns over which country controls the SAG “thermostat” and allude to possible resulting conflict. On a similar note, does it also concern you that “chemtrails” were described in the first draft of the USA’s Space Preservation Act as an “exotic weapons system” but was later omitted… I.e., does it concern you that the USA has not only alluded to technologies similar to SAG being be used for military gain but has also made efforts to conceal it – and, by association, may use SAG with that same military intention?
I look forward to your response to each of these questions.
PS – This is an open letter, published at chemtrailsprojectuk.com and geoengineeringwatch.org where our future correspondence will also be published.
While we all sympathize with what happened with the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas this past weekend. The main stream media is reporting this to be the largest mass shooting in a church in America. Let's not forget the US Gov't carried out the largest church massacre - at the "Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist" church in Waco, Texas just (24) years ago where (82) men, women and children died.
Source: Never Forget: The US Gov’t Carried Out the Largest Church Massacre—24 Years Ago, In Texas
Our source material comes from the FBI’s own vault, which contains two files on the case against Vernon Howell, also known as David Koresh. Koresh was the leader of the “Branch Davidians Seventh Day Adventists.” According to the FBI case file, Koresh was believed to have been holding people against their will at his compound in Waco, Texas, potentially guilty of “involuntary servitude and slavery” charges.
In 1992, Child Protective Services (CPS) was called in to investigate the accusations. After a thorough investigation, CPS concluded no one was being held at the compound against their will, nor any child abuse, and the federal prosecutor, who reviewed the report, saw no reason to prosecute Koresh. On October 16th, 1992, the FBI closed the case against Koresh and the allegations he was abusing children and holding his followers against their will.
Even after finding no ground for further action, the events that unfolded over the next (51) days led to this travesty of justice.
Christian parents need to do their homework on this article. Because he is absolutely correct, if the baby was born in a hospital and the parents did not make a proper claim at birth. The state takes jurisdiction and grants the parents privileges, i.e., parental rights over the child which can be revoked. However, if the parents make the proper claim at birth and do not grant jurisdiction to the state, the state has no say in how the parent decide to educate their children and can not revoke parental rights.
by Terri LaPointHealth Impact News
A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one’s own children.
In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that:
The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.
An investigation into Dwyer’s writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem.
Dwyer’s writings now influences policy within the family court system.
James Dwyer teaches college students at William and Mary College in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, the third United States President and primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was instrumental in establishing William and Mary’s law school program
Dwyer has been a prolific writer on the subject of children’s rights, and his views stand in direct contrast to the Founding Father who penned these immortal words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …
Instead of proclaiming the historical, biological, unalienable right of parents to have the liberty to teach their own children, Professor Dwyer told Michelle Malkin that:
That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.
That philosophy plays right into the hands of Child Protective Services officials who believe that it is the state’s right to decide who may or may not parent their own children.
As far back as 1994, Professor Dwyer wrote “Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights,” published in the California Law Review. In it, he challenged the assumption that “parents should have some rights in connection with the raising of their children,” going as far as to discuss provisions “under the legal regime I propose.”
Question of WHO Controls Children – Parents or State?
It is clear from the 1994 article that he resents any schooling taught from a religious perspective, whether it is from parents sending their children to a Christian school, or from parents rejecting the secularism taught in public schools who choose to homeschool and teach religious principles at home.
Perhaps not surprising is the fact that his own parents sent him to a private Catholic parochial school. (Source) His distaste for that experience colors his writings and philosophy.
Ironically, he wrote almost 25 years ago that:
No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.
However, if government, both state and federal, were to implement his philosophy and suggestions into the family court system, then the logical outcome is what currently happens to thousands of children within the foster care/adoption system – the lives of the children are controlled by the foster parents and the social workers.
Testimony given to Health Impact News from both parents and former foster children show that once Child Protective Services is involved, their lives are no longer their own, and CPS micromanages almost every aspect of their lives.
Should the State Choose Parents for All Babies Born?
It is readily apparent from his writings that he values “children’s rights,” but the basic inherent right of any child to have a relationship with their own biological parents seems to elude him. He even believes that it is the right of the state to choose the parents for a child.
In his article, “A Constitutional Birthright,” Dwyer argues:
Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state’s selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection.
The reality is that children who are adopted almost universally have a drive as they grow older to find their “real parents.” It is largely adults who were adopted as children who push for open adoption. There is something within them that needs to find out where they came from and who they are.
In the name of “children’s rights,” lawyers and policy makers such as James Dwyer would deny them the fundamental right to know their own heritage and parents in the event that the state decides to “select” their parents for them.
This convoluted logic is the antithesis of parental rights, and at the same time, it stands in stark contrast to the biological, psychological, emotional, spiritual, physiological, and even health needs of children.
Children need their parents. Studies and child welfare data shows that children thrive and grow better in their own homes than in foster care. Even if their own home is less than ideal, children who are taken from their families and placed into foster care or adopted out are at least 6 times more likely to be raped, molested, abused or killed than if they were left at home
Foster Care Children are Worse Off than Children in Troubled Homes – The Child Trafficking Business
Lone Radical Voice or Influence for Government Policy?
Unfortunately, as radical as Professor Dwyer’s philosophy of parental and child rights is, he appears to have influence in policy making.
His works were cited as sources for an article, “The Harms of Homeschooling,” by Robin L. West, published in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly.
The author sees homeschoolers as a threat to the state system, and says that the vast majority of referrals to Child Protective Services – 95% – come from public school teachers and administrators. (Note: The data we have found indicates that the figure was less than 20% in 2015, but school personnel still represent the largest group of reporters to CPS, followed by law enforcement, and medical personnel – Source.)
Other professors and colleagues at William and Mary College have praised his influence. Neal Devins has high praise for him, which should be alarming to every person in the United States who is concerned about parental rights:
Jim Dwyer has done what most academics aspire to–to change the conversation in their field. Jim’s work on children’s rights and his questioning of widely shared assumptions about parental authority have transformed the academic dialogue about the parent-child-state relationship.
State Control Over Children to Implement Mandatory Vaccines?
Dwyer argues that homeschooling can shield parents from being reported to CPS.
Another concern presented by West is that homeschooled children are less likely to be fully vaccinated, and thus present a theoretical public health risk.
Many parents would argue that the risk is in the vaccinations, but those who embrace the philosophies of Dwyer and West are more likely to ignore those parental concerns.
Dwyer Praises Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 Which Increased Child Trafficking
Among parents fighting to get their children home and out of the control of Child Protective Services, probably the most hated piece of legislation is the Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).
The law provides financial incentives to state social workers and agencies to steal children away from their families, even if they have not abused or harmed their children.
There are billions of dollars secured by states through the Title IV-E funding in ASFA.
Child Kidnapping and Trafficking: A Lucrative U.S. Business Funded by Taxpayers Called “Foster Care”
Professor James Dwyer sees this as moving in the direction that he advocates. He praises ASFA and says that family law is:
becoming more child-centered and protective in order to avoid the social costs of harm to children. A great example is the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which requires states to authorize termination of parental rights in some cases before a child has been maltreated, … (Source)
And so the war for America’s children continues, pitting parents against the State. Those who choose to homeschool their children are clearly standing in the way of the objectives of the State.
I was taught as a young boy by my mother, "...be sure your sins will find you out." You see the truth is like cream - it always rises to the top. Whenever someone tries to suppress it with lies and deception, it never works - sooner or later the truth comes out. Hopefully, these treasonous conspiratorial perpetrators - the Clintons, Comey, Lynch, Mueller, et al. will be exposed for the criminals they are...What former FBI Director James Comey did is disgusting, despicable and a breach of trust of his duties as the highest ranking law enforcement agent. In my view, he, along with Lynch and the Clintons ought to be indicted and imprisoned for their crimes against the American people.
SOURCE: DC WHISPERS
The New York Post’s John Crudele had an interesting column outlining how the bogus Democrat/Media/Deep State instigated Trump investigation is backfiring on Democrats as the American people grow increasingly weary of repeated allegations without actual proof.Beyond that fatigue is something even more concerning for Democrats. The investigation is actually shedding light on wrongdoing by figures like Hillary Clinton and James Comey – NOT Donald Trump.
Check it out:
There’s a lot going on in the Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump/Russia investigation that all the highfalutin’ newspapers that cover politics are still trying to ignore.Well, investors had better know this stuff before it bites them in the assets. So here goes.Numerous reports coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week said that former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer Clinton for prosecution long before he even interviewed key witnesses, including Hillary.Remember, the Republicans now control this committee. So bad news isn’t going to be stifled anymore.Clinton, you probably remember, “lost” her private emails, which she’d been storing on a personal computer server. Comey chastised her harshly in a televised speech but then said there was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution.Clinton’s emails, which were stolen by the Russians, have never been found. But as I’ve mentioned numerous times, the messages are still in the possession of the National Security Agency (NSA), which offered to give them to the FBI.Comey turned down that offer, according to a source who has been very reliable.I’ve also mentioned that Comey fibbed when he said his agents unanimously agreed that prosecution was unnecessary. In fact, my source says that FBI agents were irate about the decision not to go after Clinton.The controversy got pretty intense, which may be why Comey forced agents who worked on the Clinton matter to sign additional nondisclosure agreements.There was another important development last week when a federal judge ordered the FBI to disclose more details about how it handled the Clinton investigation. That could put Comey in a hotter spot than he’s already in.What’s this got to do with the investigation of Trump and any influence the Russians may have had over the last presidential election? Absolutely nothing.But as I’ve said before, any investigation of Trump was likely to backfire when investigators started to look at the Democrats and their dealings.And that’s exactly what is starting to happen.
Full report: HERE
Clearly James Comey was involved in covering up for Hillary Clinton while at the same time weaponizing the FBI to be used against Donald Trump – both very serious miscarriages of justice.
Here’s the thing – Comey has already indicated how his actions were colored by input from then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the infamous secret snakes-on-a-plane meeting with Bill Clinton.
Loretta Lynch answered only to Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett.
This is a story getting very little attention in the main stream media, and yet it has huge potential for exposing blatant fraud, the complete corruption of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Clinton's, the Global Initiative Foundation; and their involvement in the homicide of Seth Rich - the now deceased DNC staffer found dead after allegedly leaking the DNC "John Podesta" emails to Wikileaks.org right before the 2016 Presidential Elections.
Former U.S. Attorney On Awan Indictment: "There Is Something Very Strange Going On Here"
We've written frequently over the past couple of months about the litany of unanswered questions surrounding the mysterious case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (DWS) IT staffers. Why did DWS seemingly threaten the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that was confiscated as part of an ongoing legal investigation? Why did DWS keep Awan on her taxpayer funded payroll all the way up until the day he was arrested by the FBI at Dulles airport while trying to flee the country to Pakistan? What, if anything, does the Awan family know about the DNC hacks that may have caused DWS to act in this way?
Now, Andrew McCarthy III, the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who led the prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, says there is "something very strange" about the recent indictment filed against Imran Awan and his wife Hina Alvi in the District of Columbia.
In a National Review article, McCarthy points out that it's not what's in the indictment that is necessarily surprising but rather what is seemingly intentionally omitted. For instance, McCarthy points out that "the indictment appears to go out of its way not to mention" that Imran was apprehended while in the process of fleeing the country, a fact that would seem to be the best evidence available to prove the fraud charges.
Source: Zero Hedge
Chief Obamacare Architect Sacked After Fraudulent Billing Investigation
For all the Affordable Care Act supporters, here you have it. The Chief architect caught fraudulently billing the State of Vermont for work not actually done. Jonathan Gruber was the chief architect of the Affordable Healthcare Act; its no wonder this legislation is so bad. He should be thrown in prison and his health care bill needs to be repealed and replaced with a more honest healthcare plan.
For those who don't know Jonathan Gruber. He is famous for his quote regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said during one health care conference.
Vermont’s Attorney General has settled the state’s claims of fraud against Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who served as a technical consultant for President Barack Obama and as one of the chief architects of Obamacare.
Under the terms of the settlement, Gruber will no longer work as a taxpayer-funded economic consultant for the state’s health care system and he won’t seek to be paid any money he might be owed, reports the Rutland Herald, a Vermont newspaper.
Source: The Daily Caller
How is it the body count continue to climb where the Clintons are involved and yet, no one seems to care or even notice? What's most troubling is half of the American people voted for her in the last Presidential election. The Clinton cabal needs to be dwelt with and put in prison where they belong. Trump drain the swamp.
The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis
This has been the goal of the Rothchild family for years according to an interview done by Aaron Russo before his untimely death. They are going to continue to push this agenda until it becomes a reality unless "we the people" wake up and rebel against it.
The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis
On October 22 The Telegraph published a map showing the U.S. leads the world in private firearm ownership but does not even crack the Top 10 when it comes to firearm-related deaths.
According to the Telegraph, the countries with highest per-capita gun ownership are:
USA – 112.6 guns per 100 residents
Serbia – 75.6
Yemen – 54.8
Switzerland – 45.7
Cyprus – 36.4
Saudi Arabia – 35
Iraq – 34.2
Uruguay – 31.8
Sweden – 31.6
Norway – 31.3
Note–the Telegraph presents gun ownership as so expansive in the U.S. that guns actually outnumber people. Yet the U.S. does not appear on the list of the Top 10 countries for firearm-related deaths. Those countries are:
Honduras – 67.18 per 100,000 residents per year
Venezuela – 59.13
Swaziland – 37.16
Guatemala – 34.1
Jamaica – 30.72
El Salvador – 26.77
Colombia – 25.94
Brazil – 21.2
Panama – 15.11
Uruguay – 11.52
The map and the accompanying Telegraph article were drawn from the Small Arms Survey and the 2012 Congressional Research Service Report. As Breitbart News previously reported, the CRS report shows privately owned firearms jumped from 192 million in the U.S. in 1994 to 310 million in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate–which was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993–fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by 2000. Gun sales continued to surge and the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell to 3.2 in 2011.
Think about it–as gun ownership rose, the murder rate plummeted in the U.S. Couple that with the fact that only one of the Top 10 countries for gun ownership is also in the Top 10 for firearm-related deaths–Uruguay is number eight for gun ownership number 10 for gun deaths–and the point is clear: More guns correlate with less crime.
Ironically, the city of Chicago has one of the nations toughest gun laws, and so far in 2016 there have been over 3,500 shootings. This would tend to contradict President Obama's remarks made back in October 2015.
We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals [to] still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.
What does one do when they realize all of what they've been taught their whole in life by people they've trusted and believed without question, is simply not true.
It causes what is known as "cognitive dissonance," a psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. This occurs because the truth of the matter is actually diametrically opposed to, or opposite what you've been taught.
After years of combing through ancient ecclesiastical archives and records, Kurtis Richard Kallenbach uncovers a deeply hidden system of pledging biological material, which unknowingly implicates everyone by presumption, and they become unsuspecting subscribers to the ROMAN CATHOLIC, Gregorian [circa 1582]anno Domini calendar timeline story, which in Medieval Latin, means in the year of the Lord 1
Remember the famous quote by Colonel Edward Mandel House:
“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging...." 2
Watch this series of videos to gain insight into the reality we find ourselves despite what you think you know or understand, or have been taught your whole life.
His contact information: www.kurtisrichardkallenbach.xyz