Sunday, March 27, 2011

Resistance Radio's New Listeners - The Police?

G Edward Griffin on The Federal Reserve Glenn Beck 1of3 Mar 25, 2011

The NEW RememberBuilding7 Television Ad

The NEW RememberBuilding7 Television Ad

CNN Segment On Libya Titled "The New World Order"

I do find it a little odd CFR President Richard Haass doesnt seem to support the intervention in Libya. This could be a smoke screen or could simply be some disagreement at the top and could indicate some problems with the ongoing agenda in the middle east.

There’s no good reason to open this Pandora’s box, warns Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s a matter of realpolitik, he writes. First, Libya isn’t a crucial point for U.S. policy, either for oil or for regional stability (as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are, respectively). Even with humanitarian concerns, a no-fly zone or a no-drive zone would be prohibitively complicated and expensive to run—and would probably mean war, as soon as allied planes clashed with Gaddafi’s air force. And the inherent risk to helping the rebels—especially through as volatile a move as handing weapons to them—is that that we don’t know enough about the rebels and their goals. “The last thing [the U.S. military] needs is another vaguely defined intervention in a place where U.S. interests are less than vital,” Haass writes.

Prosecuter Urges A False Flag Attack

Illegal, immoral acts made just

Illegal, immoral acts made just

March 22, 2011
Denver, Colorado, USA

Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile? It’s beyond description. Standing in the impact area, it’s as if nothing has ever existed there before.

It’s naive to think that something with so much destructive power is unlikely to cause ‘collateral damage.’ I can only imagine the consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any implication that military strikes are responsible for significant civilian casualties in Libya… while at the same time playing down America’s role and the timeline for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced fighting forces… it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all under the auspices of protecting civilians… but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN Security Council for their ‘political courage,’ taking action in the face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

“Political courage” is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, “What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks… to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal. The UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which ‘authorized’ this invasion, expresses condemnation for Qadaffi’s deleterious actions against his own people…

… nevermind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which produces only 10% of Libya’s oil) where the US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered with front row seats to the show;

… nevermind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

… nevermind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

… nevermind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

… nevermind that you can’t just step in, bomb some targets, step out, and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to materialize out of thin air;

… nevermind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something is legal, it must be just… and if it’s not legal, they’ll pass a law or resolution making it legal… and hence just.

This is the way they operate– using regulatory technicalities to wrap themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their agenda. As Tacitus said, “the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

World Trade Center 7: Quacks Like A Duck

Solution to the Budget Crisis: Keeping the State's Money in the State

Solution to the Budget Crisis: Keeping the State's Money in the State

Global Research, March 26, 2011
Email this article to a friend

Cut spending, raise taxes, sell off public assets – these are the unsatisfactory solutions being debated across the nation; but the budget crises now being suffered by nearly all the states did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation. They arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street. In the wake of the 2009 financial market collapse, banks curtailed their lending more sharply than in any year since 1942, driving massive unemployment and causing local tax revenues to plummet.
The logical solution, then, is to restore credit to the local economy. But how? The Federal Reserve could provide the capital and liquidity necessary to create bank credit, in the same way that it provided$12.3 trillion in liquidity and short-term loans to the large money center banks. But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke declared in January 2011 that the Fed had no intention of doing that -- not because it would be too costly (the total deficit of all the states comes to less than 2% of the credit advanced for the bank bailout) but because it is not part of the Fed’s mandate. If Congress wants the Fed to advance credit to local governments, he said, it will have to change the law.
The states are on their own. Policymakers are therefore considering a variety of reforms designed to increase bank lending, particularly to small businesses, the hardest hit by tightening credit standards. One measure that is drawing increasing interest is the creation of a bank modeled on the Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned bank in the country. The BND has a 92-year history of safe, secure and highly profitable banking. North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country; and in 2009, when other states were floundering, it had the largest budget surplus it had ever had.
Eight states now have bills pending either to form state-owned banks or to do feasibility studies to determine their potential. This year, bills were introduced in the Oregon State legislature on January 11; inWashington State on January 13; in Massachusetts on January 20 (following a 2010 bill that lapsed); and in the Maryland legislature on February 4. They join Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii, and Louisiana, which introduced similar bills in 2010. The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses for Washington and Oregon. Their conclusion was that state-owned banks in those states would have a substantial positive impact on employment, new lending, and state and local government revenue.
State-owned banks could be a win-win for everyone interested in a thriving local economy. Objections are usually based on misconceptions or a lack of information. Proponents stress that:
1. A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans. The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million. It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services. It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals.
2. The BND not only does not compete for loans but does not compete for commercial deposits. Less than 2% of its deposits come from consumers. Municipal government deposits are also reserved for local community banks, which are able to use these funds for loans specifically because the BND provides letters of credit guaranteeing them. Virtually all of the BND’s deposits come from the state itself. All state revenues are deposited in the BND by law.
3. Although the BND is a member of the Federal Reserve system, it is insured by the state rather than by the FDIC. This does not, however, put deposits at risk. Rather, it helps avoid risk and unnecessary expense, since the BND’s chief depositor is the state, and the state has far more to deposit than $250,000, the maximum covered by FDIC insurance. FDIC insurance is not only very expense but subjects members to FDIC regulation, making the state subservient to a semi-private national banking association. (The FDIC calls itself an independent agency of the federal government, but it receives no Congressional appropriations. Rather, it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities.) North Dakota prefers to maintain its financial independence.
4. BND officials stress that the bank is run by bankers, not politicians bent on funding their favorite development projects or bestowing political favors. The bank is run very conservatively, doing only creditworthy deals and avoiding speculation in derivatives and risky subprime loans. By partnering with local banks, the BND actually shields itself from risk, since the local bank takes the initial loss if the borrower fails to pay.
5. The BND does not imperil state funds or tax money but is self-funding and self-sustaining. It manages VA, FHA and other forms of loans that are federally guaranteed and would otherwise go to large out-of-state banks. Profits on these federally-guaranteed loans are then used to build a capital surplus from which riskier loans can be made to local businesses and development projects. The BND has areturn on equity of 25-26% and has contributed over $300 million to the state (its only shareholder) in the past decade -- a notable achievement for a state with a population less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County. Compare California’s public pension funds, which entrust their money to Wall Street and are down more than $100 billion, or close to half the funds’ holdings, following the banking debacle of 2008.
6. Partnering with the BND allows community banks to fund local projects in which Wall Street is not interested, leveraging municipal government funds that would otherwise not be available for loans. Further, infrastructure projects can be funded through the state bank at substantially less cost, since the state owns the bank and gets the interest back. Studies have shown that interest composes 30-50% of public projects.
8. The North Dakota Bankers’ Association does not oppose the BND but rather endorses it. North Dakota has the most local banks per capita and the lowest default rate of any state.
Other states could realize similar benefits, if they were to form banks on the BND model. Paying interest to coupon clippers on state and municipal bonds means sending money out of the state on a one-way trip to Wall Street. Having a state-owned bank allows the state to keep its money local, flowing into the state treasury and the local economy.

Originally posted by Yes! Magazine.
Ellen Brown is an attorney and chairman of the Public Banking Institute. She has written eleven books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free (2007, 2010).

Obama: Americans have right to know when we debate and engage in major f...

Daniel Hannan: Lessons Of The American Revolution pt.1

US officials: Libyan operation could last months

US officials: Libyan operation could last months

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

Ahead of President Barack Obama's national address Monday to explain his decision to act against the Libyan leader, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in appearances on the Sunday talk shows that the intervention had effectively rendered Gadhafi's forces defenseless against air attacks and created the conditions for opposition advances westward.

In interviews taped Saturday, Gates and Clinton also defended the narrowly defined U.N. mandate to prevent atrocities against Libyan civilians and said the U.S. had largely accomplished its goals.

"We have taken out his armor," Gates said, adding that the U.S. soon would relinquish its leading role in enforcing a no-fly zone and striking pro-Gadhaf

Chemtrail Resource Page The Company of Howard Hughes’ Climate Change Fight - Old Govt Documentation On Geoengineering *

The Company of Howard Hughes’ Climate Change Fight - Old Govt Documentation On Geoengineering *

The Company of Howard Hughes’ Climate Change Fight - Old Govt Documentation On Geoengineering *

Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara

We are so familiar with nonsensical trivia that fills so many news mediums these days that the following information might appear the same but it’s quite the opposite. It will soon become apparent, from authorised sources, how important it is. To give the subject proper consideration we’ll need to look at a number of these sources including an important government funded report, an article published by the New York Times (wrote by Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour M. Hersh reminding us of some old facts), and some other government sources.

Howard Hughes Company’s Climate Change Fight

The text below is taken directly from the United States Government Patent site. The restricted for government only domain, .gov, can be seen in the site’s address. It shows a technology with patent number 5003186 by Hughes Aircraft Company filed in 1990 with relating technology filed in 1965. Keep in mind that the U.S. government funded a large 1992 report titled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base(which can be can be read from the archive of the National Academies Press) discussed this technology on a global scale and expressed, quote: “the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs”. We’ll read some more detailed extracts from this report momentarily and see how current administrations support it but first the technology Hughes Company developed decades ago:


United States Patent 5,003,186

“Hughes Aircraft Company

“Filed: April 23, 1990

U.S. Patent Documents
3222675 December 1965

“Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming

“This invention relates to a method for the reduction of global warming resulting from the greenhouse effect, and in particular to a method which involves the seeding of the earth’s stratosphere with Welsbach-like materials.

“Most current approaches to reduce global warming are to restrict the release of various greenhouse gases, such as CO.sub.2, CFC, and methane. These imply the need to establish new regulations and the need to monitor various gases and to enforce the regulations.

“One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaustwhile the airliner was at its cruising altitude. While this method would increase the reflection of visible light incident from space, the metallic particles would trap the long wavelength blackbody radiation released from the earth. This could result in net increase in global warming.

“It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a method for reduction of global warming due to the greenhouse effect which permits heat to escape through the atmosphere.

“Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are also suitable for the purpose. The greenhouse gases layer typically extends between about seven and thirteen kilometers above the earth’s surface. The seeding of the stratosphere occurs within this layer. The particlessuspended in the stratosphere

“Welsbach materials have the characteristic of wavelength-dependent emissivity (or reflectivity). For example, thorium oxide (ThO.sub.2) has high emissivities in the visible and far IR regions but it has low emissivity in the near IR region.

“It is presently believed that particle sizes in the ten to one hundred micron range would be suitable for the seeding purposes. Larger particles would tend to settle to the earth more quickly.

“The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth’s stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers. The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior workregarding the metallic particles.”

The National Academy of Sciences (who have a U.S. Congress Charter) organised the creation of the report (Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base‘) and on page VIII of the Front Matter it states that the project was funded by the government (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and got other funding from “a consortium of private foundations, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation “. The project had a massive amount of people involved and United Nations man Maurice Strong was there at the conception phase as stated on page III. These introductory pages show what specialists, from private and government bodies, were involved with tunnel knowledge in the fields of Chemistry, Law, the Air Force, Biomedical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Genetics, Atmospheric Physics, and Economics to name a few. Professors were brought in from the most upper-class colleges in the United States such as Harvard, Yale, Carnegie, Berkeley, MIT (who constantly work with the United States Department of Defense), the Rockefeller University and so on. General Motors acquired Hughes Aircraft Company plus it’s technology and their Vice President of their research laboratories, Robert Frosch, took part along with Joseph Glas the Director Vice President and General Manager of the Fluoro-chemicals division at Du Pont (the world’s second largest chemical corporation that also works with the military). There are many other notables including John McLucas, the former United States Secretary of the Air Force

On page 59 of the report Hughes patented way is listed among other options:

“Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight.”

Page 59 it also states:

“Geoengineering options appear technically feasible in terms of cooling effects and costs on the basis of currently available preliminary information.”

On page 460 they express their delight at such low costs, which I’m sure the military (who don’t mind spending billions on a single plane) would also share. It said:

“Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented.”

Back on page 454 of the 1992 global geoengineering report they go into the costs of chemtrailing with Hughes’ type technology:

“If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required. The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated.”

On page 459 the conflict of interest so called experts recommended going ahead with geoengineering as soon as possible and that the governments of the world can simply reduce as much CO2 as they care to pay for:

Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent per year

“These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere.”

The report by hand picked experts and highly respected influential players ends up supporting this option as the most cost effective; good news for GM.

It’s important to note that this technology is just a slight upgrade to old geoengineering technology we forgot about or were not reminded about. The following two 1970s articles are from the New York Timesarchive (which you can search for yourself on their site):

New York Times
July 12, 1973, Thursday

Senate Urges U.S. to Seek End To All ‘Environmental Warfare’; Rainfall Pattern Altered Growing Support Noted

“The Senate gave overwhelming approval today to a resolution calling on the United States to take the lead in seeking an international agreement to prohibit ‘environmental warfare‘ such as past American rainmaking practices in Southeast Asia.”

The second article was written by the famous Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour M. Hersh:

New York Times
May 19, 1974, Sunday

“U. S. Admits Rain-Making From ‘67 to ‘72 in Indochina; A First in Warfare

“WASHINGTON, May 18– The Defense Department has acknowledged to Congress that the Air Force and Navy participated in extensive rain-making operations in Southeast Asia from 1967 to 1972 in an attempt to slow the movement of North Vietnamese troops and supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail network.”

There you have government admitting they can change the climate decades ago. That international treaty was wrote up and ratified from 1977. It’s titled”CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES”and it can be viewed on the Federation of American Scientists site here and on the Carnegie Endowment site here. This technology is obsolete yet remarkably most of us would think it’s a technology yet to be developed. Amazing how much we are not reminded of or not told about.

Everyday we get from media that it’s normal for horrible things happen to countries predominantly made up of brown or black people and we don’t bat an eyelid even if the pain is inflicted from a Western nation. But the question is; does unaccountable national security branches of governance have the same mindset when it comes to us, the peak of democratic civilised society (The UK, USA, France, Canada and so on)? Fortunately there is an answer to that question? As briefly mentioned by the third largest newspaper in the UK:

The Guardian

“A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

“Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organismsover vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

“The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down

“The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any ‘inquisitive inquirer’ the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

“One chapter of the report, ‘The Fluorescent Particle Trials’, reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored.

“cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancerand during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

“In another chapter, ‘Large Area Coverage Trials’, the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship,

“The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.

“some families in areas which bore the brunt of the secret tests are convinced the experiments have led to their children suffering birth defects, physical handicaps and learning difficulties. The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: ‘Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced bydefence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge.’

“Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: ‘The results from these trials will save lives,’

“Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’ “

The publicly unelected characters running national security branches of governance are unaccountable because most of what they do is classified (even to elected member of government) until they decide decades later to declassify some of what they did. When these planes were spraying millions of people obviously the corporate and state run media could not report on it because that is included in National Security laws and the individuals in the general population who noticed the very real spraying were obviously ignored by the major free press who are only free to tell us things of utter importance when givenauthorization which can be years later or never.

Warring on Warming or Climate Changing

Anything can be done to the public under National Security laws if the excuse is to help in the fight against this or that (especially if the excuse is to save the world ). UN chief Ban Ki-Moon in 2007 expressed, “the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming ” (reported by MSNBC); Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, recently used a B-class Hollywood movie line when he publicly proclaimed, “It’s a question of survival of the human race ” (reported by the Irish Times). The previous generation were terrified by the global scale cold-war and now their children have a hot war. It’s no surprise a war contractor, Hughes Company, was involved right from the start to combat our climate.

What are they doing today?

When the best and brightest minds decided in the geoengineering report that “such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately,” it was the go-ahead signal for the military that the government paid for. That paragraph can be used as the historical justification for the military to go into full effect with global geoengineering and under National Security laws they did not have to tell elected politicians or the public about it, never mind asking for their permission (that is how ever changing democracies are run). In a globaised world National Security branches works together especially with a perceived global threat. Despite the media blackout on current National Security operations there was one report from Germany’s RTL. RTL News is owned by the RTL Group which is Europe’s largest TV, radio and production company. Below are extracts from that 2007 news report (the broadcast can be viewed here):

Clouds up to 350 km long appear all of a sudden on the radar, but only on the meteorological radars .

“We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails [chemtrails] comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements. Military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.

“Military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate

“The registers report emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes

“In the following three weeks the instruments register other activities. Meanwhile the satellite imagery is clearly counterfeited by the military.

“[Johannes Remmel - German Politician] ‘It’s obvious that enormous regions are being polluted with clandestine actions. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.’ “

If militaries around the world were spraying the atmosphere constantly you’d expect it to be detected, right? The Guardian article revealed that government sources in the know were told to lie to the public about spraying the skies so naturally we’d expect to find the new massive changes to the skies explained away as normal by official sources with either a good cover story or a poor one. Unfortunately for our health there is such excuses. NASA who has been monitoring the atmosphere for decades with billion-dollar technology instructed us in early 2007 that an enormous 60% of part of the world’s atmosphere that was clear before is now not anymore and it’s normal. Here is the press release from NASA dot GOV:


“NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., document for the first time that air around clouds that was previously considered clear is actually filled with particles that are neither cloud droplets nor typical dry aerosols such as dust and air pollution. Worldwide, up to 60 percent of the atmosphere labeled as cloud-free in satellite observations is actually filled with this twilight zone of in-between particles”

Inconveniently or conveniently the photographs on that page are malfunctioning and not appearing. One of the text captions underneath a missing photos states the clouds in this sky “actually has a twilight zone of light-reflecting particles around it “. Light-reflecting particles: remember the government report on geoengineering said,” use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight ,” and the Hughes technology uses tiny particles of Welsbach materials to reflect light.

In 2009 a British Royal society declared a new widespread cloud suddenly exists and of course they said it’s normal. All clouds were fully categorised since 1953, by the way. The UK’s largest newspaper the Telegraph reported the following:

By Richard Gray

“Experts at the Royal Meteorological Society are now attempting to have the new cloud type, which has been named ‘Asperatus’ after the Latin word for rough, officially added to the international nomenclature scheme used by forecasters to identify clouds.

“the unique formation has been spotted in skies around the world.”

Well if you believe that and are that easy to turnover then you would have made a great citizen if you lived in Norwich or other parts of the UK during the 1950s, 1960, 1970s (those who would not believe their own lying eyes). There are other people, who are specialised in one area, that may not know what is going on and they become perplexed:

June 29, 2007

‘It is clear that these clouds are changing, a sign that a part of our atmosphere is changing and we do not understand how, why or what it means,’ said atmospheric scientists James Russell III of Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. ‘These observations suggest a connection with global change in the lower atmosphere and could represent an early warning that our Earth environment is being changed.’

The military is changing the climate and we are getting the blame. These long trails have been spotted in the skies around the world because it occurs more over cities. Like the British government before they prefer to spay over populated areas. There are millions of websites (some good some bad) documenting the daily photographs of the skies lined with chemtrails like the ones reported in Germany. This equates to millions of people worldwide being aware of what is going on, however billions are unaware. People who go to the major corporate or government-managed media are ignored like people in the UK decades past. If someone is lucky enough to get a reply from the media it might inform him that the spraying they recorded coming out of a plane is actually the assuredly new normal Asperatus cloud.

What is the mindset behind such schemes endorsed by the top?

The elected government are kept in the dark like the rest of us; so who influences the real government (the unelected more powerful branches)? It’s definitely not people without lofty respect (old money and lots of it).

Another group of high-up and respected experts in a variety of scientific, business and political fields were brought together to prepare long term plans. They’re reports are not confidential; anyone who wants to bore themselves can purchase them on Amazon. These experts penned their organisation with the supposedly impressive name of The Club of Rome. Their 1991 report titled “The First Global Revolution” ( ISBN 0-671-71107-5) has a few revealing paragraphs among all the bureaucratic discourse. In the chapter titled “The Vacuum” (which is defined the illusion of democracy as being too slow and needs to be replaced by fast business type governance structures operating at the international level) it stated:

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act […] The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor.”

Then a short number of paragraphs later the report states:

“in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

This organisation with highly influential members had their imaginings accepted years later by billions of people (who may not have realised it yet that they are the invented enemy) thanks to a politician’s moviethat was shown in cinemas worldwide but mainly the media. The French President also repeated the intention of this paragraph when he said, ” There is one objective: to encourage homes and businesses to change their behaviour ” (reported by the Irish Times). Green politics has truly been a global revolution not from the pressure of grassroots/bottom movements in the 21 st century as presented, but from the very top in the 20 th century.

The U.S. government’s important geoengineering report also targets people as the problem. On page 420it states:

“the concomitant reduction in fertility rates could help to hold down overall greenhouse gas emissions at a relatively inexpensive cost per ton of CO2.”

On page 421 the report states:

“The National Research Council (1986) report noted that reducing fertility would produce at every subsequent point slower population growth and smaller population size. Both World Bank and U.N. population projections show that the sooner fertility rates are reduced, the smaller the world population will be at stabilization.”

“at any given rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, a smaller population will mean less total emissions

The report also complains that the U.S. mindset has hindered an in-the-open “national population policy“. China has one of those.

It seems the people in the know are gently preparing the public to accept what is going on as a good idea before they directly admit they were so wise as to do it beforehand using National Security laws. We can see this when Obama’s top science director puts out press statements like the following (reported by theAssociated Press): “John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.

Fox News produced an article on John Holdren that did not get much attention. They tell you about Holdren’s book of recommendations but then in mainstream media and typical damage-control fashion they include information with the goal of creating doubt that Holdren did not mean what he co-wrote. Here are some facts from that article not the opinions:

Fox News
July 21, 2009

“He co-authored in 1977, ‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,’

“Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

“Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

Fortunately there are a small number of people with extremist views like Holdren, unfortunately they can be found in high positions in society like one of Gordon Brown’s top advisors who longs for the UK population of 61 million to be cut by 30 million people as reported by the Times. You’ll find an almost endless list of people at the top who believe this. And some like Senator Rockefeller utterly adore John Holdren. CNSN News has a video in this article where you can see Senator Rockefeller at a Congressional Hearing say, “Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to embarrass you, but I sometimes refer to you as walking on water.” People like Holdren and Holdren himself have taught young men and women (future misleaders and experts) at top universities including Harvard, where he was a professor; so is it any wonder that minds shaped in this way support geoengineering.

The particles mentioned in Hughes’ patent are not the best things to inhale. Aluminium oxide causes Alzheimer symptoms in human brains and thorium oxide is radioactive (it has been used as a nuclear fuel). It’s interesting to note that there are reports of rainwater tested (after the sky was filled with chemtrails) and laboratory results showed the presence of Barium. Thorium oxide has been replaced in x-ray machines with Barium as it’s a little less toxic. When this stuff settles down to the earth and inhaled by us it’s not going to be great for the health. It won’t damage you immediately of course, humans are relatively sturdy. Daily intake and the built up of microns of poisonous materials will however gradual wear down strong biology.

The public are kept in the dark and in that regard nothing has really changed for thousands of years. Maybe it’s time to reconsider the entire power structure of official authorities ruling over us and to stop giving approval to be managed.



Note: How to differentiate a chemtrail from a condensation trail
To people unfamiliar with this subject it comes as a surprise that most people living in cities don’t look up. If you live in a city all you need do is look up for a few minutes each day for a couple of days and you’ll spot the streaks in the sky and the odd plane spewing out chemtrails among commercial planes (that have ordinary contrails behind them). Sometimes the skies are absolutely saturated with trails criss-crossing each other miles long and the public don’t notice a thing, even if they are told to look up. These chemtrails expand out forming large artificial clouds. If a number of chemtrails are sprayed the sky looks like a milky blanket. Normal condensation trails from ordinary planes are relatively short and evaporate soon afterwards as they are merely condensation not made up of chemicals or particles like the military planes sprayed in Germany and the UK.

MP3: Alan Watt on RBN Radio - Chemical Spraying, Memory Fading *

Old Technology Presented As Cutting Edge *

Govt: Low Carbon Society Law Need For Ireland *

Reuters: China Promotes Abortion To Reduce CO2 - People Are Enemy #1 *

1974 Time Magazine Article on Global Cooling and More *

Global Weapon Concerns The EU And Environmentalists *

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal

The Great Global Warming Swindle (film) *

74 Years Since Oct Snowfalls - Deprogramming Global Warming *