Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Aug. 15, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok. In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed: “Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been…
Monthly Archives: September 2016
CDC Aims for Unprecedented Expansion of Policing Powers; You’re Life is Not Yours To Decide Any Longer
………The third kind of person is found at the deepest level of life where integrity is grounded in vision and in values found only after losing the innocence of superficial hopes and dreams.
The third kind of person survives some life-changing defeat or loss and suffers a descent in life that makes them aware of the agonies and tragedies experienced by so many throughout the world. Such a descent can be quite private, as in the case of a debilitating illness or the loss of a loved one. It can also occur as part of a collective tragedy, as in the case of war, a terrorist act or a natural disaster that alters the lives of many people at once. Either way, the stricken person finds themselves in a dark night of the soul, alone with the remnants of broken dreams, lost in a darkness that erases all sense of hope.
To despair means to have lost all hope, to feel both hopeless and helpless in the face of overwhelming forces of violence, betrayal or tragic loss. Yet, if we are willing to face the darkness, a deeper level of understanding can be felt and a deeper dream of life can be found.
Because of this deeper knowledge, those who survive loss know who they are at their core; they also know the core values and ideals upon which humanity depends. They cannot be manipulated by fear or greed, cannot be shaken by threats or be pressured to act against either their own integrity or the interests of the greater good. We look to them to preserve the highest sense of human value and the deepest sense of human connectedness. In this way the third level of awareness produces the truly inspired leaders, the wounded healers, and the wise counselors who know that the ideals of humanity must be upheld precisely when the darkness and confusion around us grows.
Today’s highlighted article was published last month, but I didn’t read it at the time and I’m guessing you didn’t either. What’s so uniquely tragic about the the intrusion of the police state into America’s schools, is it appears the parents themselves are the ones demanding it. This is in contrast to an overbearing surveillance state implemented by government in secret, as well as by private corporations via lengthy terms of service agreements nobody actually reads. What follows are excerpts from a very important article published at The Nation, The School-Security Industry Is Cashing In Big on Public Fears of Mass Shootings
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona introduced an amendment that would grant the FBI extensive surveillance powers during deliberations over a bill pertaining to American water supplies Monday. The legislation is intended to help solve water problems that have arisen from incidences like the one in Flint, Michigan, but McCain capitalized on the bill to amplify U.S. law enforcement’s spying capacity.
For years, cosmetic, toothpaste, and body care product manufacturers added “microbeads,” microscopic balls of plastic, to their merchandise, touting their skin-exfoliating effects. A Congressional ban that goes into effect beginning in 2017 will put an end to the environmentally toxic practice, at least in the US.
Another terrorist attack in a major American city, more frightening images and talk of pressure cookers and ball bearings, BBs and pipe bombs, “lone wolves” and Christmas tree lights. The latest alleged perpetrator is Ahmad Khan Rahami, a young Muslim man who grew up in America and likes souped-up cars. He became “self-radicalized” watching videos on the Internet that inspired him to blow up innocent Americans.
FBI agents conducting undercover investigations have now been given the green light to impersonate journalists, the Justice Department determined last week — effectively legalizing the government’s most notorious propaganda program, Operation Mockingbird. Last Thursday, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published what’s become the subject of outrage for journalists, civil and constitutional rights advocates, and legal experts — “A Review of the FBI’s Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation.” Allowing agents to infiltrate media organizations for any reason threatens to utterly undermine public trust, kill the very concept of journalistic integrity, and throttle the flow of information from sources and whistleblowers concerned with the legitimacy of journalists they contact.
As the nation reels from two recent fatal police shootings of black men, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday called for cities nationwide to adopt “stop-and-frisk”—a widely condemned police practice that New York City was forced to abandon after a federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional, finding that it disproportionately targeted minorities.
Here’s the nation’s would-be first lady — and right beside her, a second lady.
Three years before she met husband Donald Trump, Melania Trump was snapped in a nude frolic with another female model, bombshell photos obtained exclusively by The Post show.
The lesbian-themed pics are from a two-day photo shoot in Manhattan in 1995, when Melania Knauss, as she was called, was 25 years old and modeling under the name “Melania K.”
(Photographer Alé de Basseville later told The Post that he misspoke, and the photo session actually took place in 1996 in Manhattan, and appeared in a 1997 issue of the magazine.)
Several were featured in Max Magazine, a now-defunct French men’s monthly, more than 20 years ago. Others have never been in print — until now.
The raciest of the photos shows Melania lying nude in a bed as Scandinavian model Emma Eriksson, also naked, embraces her from behind, just below her breasts, which are fully exposed.
In another photo, Eriksson wears sheer stockings, a low-cut bustier, high heels and a long robe — all designed by John Galliano — and raises a whip as if preparing to spank Melania, who pretends to recoil. Melania is more conservatively dressed in a skin-tight gown and high heels.
“I always loved women together, because I have been with a lot of women who desired the ménage à trois,” said Jarl Ale de Basseville, the French fashion photographer who snapped the pictures.
~This follows the work of Viktor Shauberger and the imploding (not exploding) vortex energy field. We are electromagnetic beings. Everything is frequency, vibration and energy. Everything.
In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him had demolished the pressure propulsion principle. Earlier in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum, as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with “induced” momenta from the heart. He also stated that the pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. Experimental corroboration of Steiner’s concepts in the embryo and adult is herein presented.
The fact that the heart by itself is incapable of sustaining the circulation of the blood was known to physicians of antiquity. They looked for auxiliary forces of blood movement in various types of
etherisation' andpneumatisation’ or ensoulement of the blood on its passage through the heart and lungs. With the dawn of modern science and over the past three hundred years, such concepts became untenable. The mechanistic concept of the heart as a hydraulic pump prevailed and became firmly established around the middle of the nineteenth century.
The heart, an organ weighing about three hundred grams, is supposed to
pump' some eight thousand liters of blood per day at rest and much more during activity, without fatigue. In terms of mechanical work this represents the lifting of approximately 100 pounds one mile high! In terms of capillary flow, the heart is performing an even more prodigious task offorcing’ the blood with a viscosity five times greater than that of water through millions of capillaries with diameters often smaller than the red blood cells themselves! Clearly, such claims go beyond reason and imagination. Due to the complexity of the variables involved, it has been impossible to calculate the true peripheral resistance even of a single organ, let alone of the entire peripheral circulation. Also, the concept of a centralized pressure source (the heart) generating excessive pressure at its source, so that sufficient pressure remains at the remote capillaries, is not an elegant one.
Our understanding and therapy of the key areas of cardiovascular pathophysiology, such as septic shock, hypertension and myocardial ischemia are far from complete. The impact of spending billions of dollars on cardiovascular research using an erroneous premise is enormous. In relation to this, the efforts to construct a satisfactory artificial heart have yet to bear fruit. Within the confines of contemporary biological and medical thinking, the propulsive force of the blood remains a mystery. If the heart really does not furnish the blood with the total motive force, where is the source of the auxiliary force and what is its nature? The answer to those questions will foster a new level of understanding of the phenomena of life in the biological sciences and enable physicians to rediscover the human being which, all too often, many feel they have lost.
Implicit in the notion of pressure propulsion in the cardiovascular system are the following four major concepts.
(1) Blood is naturally inert and therefore must be forced to circulate.
(2) There is a random mix of the formed particles in the blood.
(3) The cells in the blood are under pressure at all times.
(4) The blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and thereby takes on their form.
However, there are observations that challenge these notions. It is seen that the blood has its own form, the vortex, which determines rather than conforms to the shape of the vascular lumen and circulates in the embryo with its own inherent biological momentum before the heart begins to function. Just as an inert vortex in nature pulses radially and longitudinally, we tentatively assume that blood is also free to pulse and is not subject to the pulse-restricting pressure implied in the pressure propulsion concept. The blood is not propelled by pressure but by its own biological momenta boosted by the heart.
When the heart begins to function, it enhances the blood’s momentum with spiraling impulses. The arteries serve a subsidiary mimical heart function by providing spiraling boosts to the circulating blood. In so doing the arteries dilate to receive the incoming blood and contract to deliver an impulse to increase the blood’s momentum.
Visionary schemes for weather and climate control have a long history, but with very few exceptions have ever worked. Would-be climate engineers and policy makers need to take this into account. My intent here is to demonstrate that- contrary to claims that climate engineering is something wholly new in scale and intent- a number of previous technological interventions have been attempted on the atmosphere, on both regional and planetary scales. By and large, they did not have their desired effects on the physical environment, outpaced their original technical requirements, and gave rise to complicated political, social and economic issues.
I would begin by addressing a claim that although historical cases of weather modification provide a valuable context for thinking about climatic interventions, they represent different temporal and spatial scales, and therefore may be of limited comparative value. Manipulation of weather and climate phenomena is intimately related. Any intervention in Earth’s radiation or heat budget (such as managing solar radiation) would affect the hydrological cycle and the general circulation, thus rainfall and upper-level wind patterns, including the location of the jet stream and storm tracks. The weather itself would be changed by such manipulation. Conversely, intervening in severe storms by changing their intensity or their tracks or modifying weather on a scale as large as a region, a continent, or an ocean basin would obviously affect cloudiness, temperature, and precipitation patterns, with major consequences for monsoonal flows and ultimately the general circulation. If repeated systematically, such interventions would influence the overall heat budget and the climate.
The earliest documented cases were rain-making schemes, and as such tended to be regional rather than global. In 1841 James Espy, America’s first national meteorologist, developed a theory of storms powered by convection, but the so-called “Storm King” went off the deep end technically when he proposed lighting giant fires all along the Appalachian Mountains to emulate an artificial volcano that he thought would generate rains, disrupt cold and heat waves, and clear the air of miasmas. His contemporary, Eliza Leslie, perceptively pointed out that attaining such control might cause serious damage to social relations. There were many other such rainmaking schemes. In the 1920s, with concerns about aviation safety ascendant, independent inventor L. Francis Warren and Cornell chemistry professor Wilder D. Bancroft developed a scheme to dose the clouds with electrified sand delivered by airplane. Rainmaking and fog clearing were both on the agenda, but trials, supported by the U.S. Army Air Corps, were less than promising. It turned out that airplanes could successfully disrupt smaller clouds, but experimenters could not predict whether a treated cloud would subsequently dissipate or thicken.
These early weather modification plans (some of surprisingly large scale) were couched in the context of the pressing issues and available technologies of their eras: Espy wanted to purify the air and make rain for the East Coast, and Warren and Bancroft hoped to make rain and clear airports of fog, while the military sought advantages for its fliers. But intervention is not control, and the hype surrounding both projects exceeded technical capabilities.
Prospects for larger-scale, even planetary intervention in the climate system arrived after 1945 with the dawn of several transformative technologies: nuclear weapons, digital computing, chemical cloud seeding techniques, and access to space (See Table I). Two of the projects listed here involved cloud seeding techniques, and two involved disruption of the space environment. All were part and parcel of the Cold War quest to militarize the atmosphere. Not listed in the table are proposals, dating from 1945, to bomb nascent hurricanes or break up polar ice with nuclear weapons, or to build a digital computer that would produce perfect forecasts and perhaps allow real-time intervention in threatening weather systems as they developed.
|Table I. Weather and Climate Control Projects in the Cold War (Fleming 2010)|
|1947||Project Cirrus attempts diversion of an Atlantic hurricane using dry ice seeding.|
|1958||Project Argus, top-secret military project detonates three atomic bombs in space.|
|1962||Starfish Prime, H-Bomb detonated in magnetosphere. Similar Soviet tests.|
|1967||Monsoonal cloud seeding over Vietnam leads to UN ENMOD treaty in 1978.|
In 1947 scientists at the General Electric Corporation developed methods for seeding clouds with dry ice and silver iodide, sparking a race for commercial applications and military control of the clouds. They partnered with the military in Project Cirrus to seed an Atlantic hurricane with dry ice, but the experiment went awry. Nevertheless, GE chief scientist Irving Langmuir hyped the possibilities, arguing that hurricanes could be redirected and that the climate might ultimately be controlled on a continental or oceanic scale with the techniques they had developed. Cloud seeding reached around the world, especially into arid areas and upslope watersheds, but they never resulted in fully reliable techniques to enhance precipitation or snowpack. The scale of nature was too huge and problems of verification and social acceptance were too huge. Instead of quasi-military aerial bombardment of the clouds, small-scale practices such as drip irrigation and snowmaking machines became the norm.
Between 1966 and 1974 massive and surreptitious seeding of the Southeast Asian monsoon during the Vietnam War resulted in little measureable rain, but a diplomatic nightmare for the United States when the Soviet Union brought the issue of environmental warfare to the attention of the United Nations. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) was the biggest fallout from the effort, followed by a systematic and persistent collapse of US federal support for cloud seeding.
The Argus and Starfish Prime nuclear detonations in space, along with similar Soviet testing, constituted actual attempts to engineer space weather and disrupt the magnetosphere. A theory promulgated by Nicholas Christofilos, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, held that the ionized debris and high-energy electrons generated by a nuclear explosion would travel almost instantly through Earth’s magnetic field as a giant current. In case of hostilities a nuclear blast could possibly generate a massive electromagnetic pulse over an enemy city, disrupt military communications, and destroy both satellites and the electronic guidance systems of enemy missiles. These tests, conducted by both superpowers, generated widespread public outrage and were quickly followed by the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
Lessons from History for Weather and Climate Engineering
History teaches us that things change – often in surprising or unanticipated ways – and that a certain amount of clarity can be gained by looking backward as we inevitably rush forward. Schemes aimed at attempted control of weather and climate—often framed as responses to critical problems such as water shortages, military exigencies, and cold war dominance—have fallen short of their goals many times in the past. The checkered history of this field provides valuable perspectives and a cautionary warning on what might otherwise seem to be today’s completely unprecedented climate challenges. Contemporary engineers err if they ignore this history.
Would-be climate engineers are strongly motivated by fears of future global warming, but within recent memory this landscape too has been changing. The past decade-and-a-half of surface temperature measurements seem to indicate that the estimated sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models have projected, temporarily reducing some of the short-term angst. Additionally, there is strong technical resistance, or at least caution, from the faculty of mainstream atmospheric science departments, who tend to be skeptical of simple geoengineering schemes. Increasingly, historians, philosophers, and other humanists and social scientists are getting beyond back-of-the-envelope technicalities and are taking a critical look at complex issues related to the history, ethics, and governance of global control issues. Even the neologism “geoengineering” is in the process of being abandoned (since it is not really engineering in any traditional sense), as is the phrase “solar radiation management” (since there are too many unknowns to really consider it a form of management).
Intervention into weather and climate systems does not result in control over them. Instead it has often given rise to unexpectedly complicated social issues. We should base our decision-making not only on technical expertise and what we think we can do “now” and in the near future. Rather our knowledge must be shaped (and tempered) by what we have and have not done in the past. Such are the grounds for making informed decisions and avoiding the pitfalls of rushing forward claiming we know how to control weather and climate. The following misleading claims were made by various speakers at the 2010 Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies; my comments are in italics:
“We don’t have a history of geoengineering to fall back on…” — Yes we do.
“Things are moving quickly, so we don’t have the luxury of looking at history.” — We must take the time.
“We are the first generation to think about these things.” — History says otherwise.
“If an unfriendly nation gets into a position to control the large-scale weather patterns before we can, the result could even
be more disastrous than nuclear warfare.”
— Howard T. Orville,
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s weather advisor, 1958
There are over 150 legal documents (US Patents) that evidences weather modification aka geoengineering that can be found in Appendix I of this book. Many of these patents cannot be employed or used unless used in aerosol spraying. These weather modification patents date all the way back to 1920!
In 1932, The Soviet Union established the Institute of Rainmaking in Leningrad, setting the stage for decades of experimentation with cloud seeding as a means of altering the weather. The United States followed suit in 1946, when researchers at the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, discovered that dry ice stimulates ice-crystal formation. In the Cold War’s early years, both superpowers carried out hundreds of experiments using solid carbon dioxide, silver iodide, and other particulate matter to trigger precipitation over their citizens heads.
Operation Drop Kick, in 1955, released infected mosquitoes on poor African American populations in Georgia and Florida and was part of a much larger Tuskegee Operation that lasted between 1932 to 1972 without consent or knowledge from the deliberately targeted innocent poor.
Another example, of just one of hundreds of aerosol spraying conducted over unsuspecting populations over the past decades, was the 1966 spraying of live bacteria over San Francisco residents, to allegedly test to see what biological weapons could be used to help spread a biological weapon in a “simulated germ-warfare attack.” At that time, according to Ms. Rebecca Kreston in Discover Magazine, it was “one of the largest human experiments in history” and “one the largest offenses of the Nuremberg Code since its inception.”
Between 1949 and 1989 secret biological testing has been conducted using humans as guinea pigs in Washington D.C., New York City, Key West Florida and Panama City Florida. Meanwhile, across the pond, BBC Spotlight broadcast from 1998, detailed the large area coverage Germ Warfare experiments conducted by Porton Down scientists in populated areas of Devon, Somerset and Dorset during the 1960s and 1970s.
(Please visit the website/links section to learn more about these and many more experiments on humans over the past decades.)
And the Misdirection…”we’re just starting now….” ha ha aha. this psyop piece put out in 2013
Operation Popeye (ProjectControlled Weather Popeye/Motorpool/Intermediary-Compatriot) was a highly classified weather modification program in Vietnam and Southeast Asia for over a decade beginning in 1963. Not only was cancer causing Agent Orange used for defoliation but also over 2600 cloud seeding sorties were conducted throughout the conflict to extend the East Asian Monsoon season in support of US Government military war department.
375 top scientists warn of ‘real, serious, immediate’ climate threat & not one word about Geongineering
Yesterday, 375 of the world’s top scientists, including 30 Nobel Prize winners, published an open letter regarding climate change. In the letter, the scientists report that the evidence is clear: humans are causing climate change. We are now observing climate change and its affect across the globe. The seas are rising, the oceans are warming, the lower atmosphere is warming, the land is warming, ice is melting, rainfall patterns are changing and the ocean is becoming more acidic.
These facts are incontrovertible. No reputable scientist disputes them. It is the truth.
Despite these facts, the letter reports that the US presidential campaign has seen claims that the earth isn’t warming, or it is only a natural warming, or that climate change is a hoax. These claims are false. The claims are made by politicians or real estate developers with no scientific experience. These people who deny the reality of climate change are not scientists.
These claims aren’t new. We see them every election cycle. In fact, for the Republican Party, they are a virtual litmus test for electability. It is terribly sad that the party of Lincoln (the president who initiated the National Academy of Sciences) has been rebuked by the National Academy today. It is sad that the party of Teddy Roosevelt, who created the National Park System, is acting in a way antithetical to his legacy. It is also sad that the party of Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, now is trying to eliminate that very organization.
What is perhaps most sad is that the party of “fiscal conservatism” is leading us on a path that will result in higher economic and social costs for all of us.