Sustainable Development

“The term emerged from the 1987 report of the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission), entitled Our Common Future. The term has no legal definition. It means simply ‘…to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,‘ according to the Brundtland Commission report. Linked to Earth Day (April 22), it masquerades as a call for clean air, green energy, and suggests a pristine bucolic existence for us and our progeny — forever.  But in reality,  it has become immensely useful to many groups who use the slogan to advance their own special agenda and imposes massive government regulations enforced through state and local governments. These policies place severe restrictions on energy and water use. Development schemes seek to ban the use of cars, instead forcing ridership on massively expensive and inconvenient public transportation systems. Meanwhile, so-called “Visioning” programs follow enforcement of international policies to reorganize communities into a one-size-fits-all straightjacket.

The term itself was invented by Gro Harlem Bruntlandt, a Norwegian socialist politician and former prime minister.  After her term there, she landed in Paris and, together with Club of Rome veteran Alexander King, began publicizing SD.  Indeed, the concept is a successor to the neo-Malthusian theme of the Club of Rome, which began to take hold around 1970 and led to the notorious book “Limits to Growth.”  In turn, the “Limits to Growth” concept was developed a few years earlier by US geologists like Preston Cloud and King Hubbert.  In a report published by a panel of the National Academy, they promoted the view that the world was running out of resources: food, fuels, and minerals.  According to their views, and those of the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth, most important metals should have become unavailable before the end of the 20th century.

In turn, these neo-Malthusian concerns were opposed by the so called “Cornucopians.”  Their leading apostle was certainly the late Julian Simon, who went somewhat overboard in the other direction.  Many will remember Julian Simon’s famous bet with Paul Ehrlich, the noted Stanford University doomsday prophet, concerning the unavailability of minerals by 1990.  Simon won the bet but he was certainly off-base in predicting that there would be no end to crude oil on this planet.  Fossil fuels, of course, are essentially non-renewable.  No matter how slowly they are used up, once used up, they are gone and not replenished over any reasonable time periods.

But in a certain sense this does not matter.  Oil may become depleted — at least low-cost oil — but its essential function is to produce energy.  And there we have a variety of ways to create energy for many millennia or even longer — based on nuclear fission.

The debate between neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians came to a head in a 1969 symposium of the AAAS, published as a book titled “Is there an optimal level of population?”  Both sides recognized that population levels and growth rates are equally important in discussing the possible depletion of resources.  Those proposing larger populations, like Julian Simon, seemed oblivious also to the environmental costs that would rise rapidly as the natural ability of the environment to absorb waste is exceeded.

The idea of sustainable development gained momentum from the UN’s 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro. Maurice Strong was the Secretary-General of the Conference. Strong also headed the first such conference in 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden. He was also a member of the Brundtland Commission. Shortly after the 1992 event, Strong created an NGO (non-government-organization) called Earth Council, whose purpose was to coordinate the efforts of all nations to achieve sustainable development through the creation of national councils on sustainable development.

The Rio Conference produced three major documents: The Convention on Biological Diversity; The Framework Convention on Climate Change; and Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a ‘soft law’ policy declaration, or Action Plan; the other two documents are legally binding international treaties.”

Since its beginnings, the “sustainable development” movement has infected our entire nation. President Bill Clinton really got the ball rolling in the United States when he signed an executive order creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in June of 1993.

In a nutshell, the purposes of the “sustainable development” agenda are to limit people’s ability to use their own land as they see fit, to severely curtail people’s energy consumption, and to cram people into metropolitan centers (stack ’em and pack ’em) while prohibiting development outside of “approved” land areas, what these “smart growth” Einsteins call “suburban sprawl,” as if land development is a bad thing. The agenda aims to corral people into such close quarters that they will be encouraged to walk everywhere they go instead of drive those evil cars.

We see the rotten fruit of this movement all around us, from the dangerous, radio frequency-emitting “smart meters,” to low-volume flush toilets, to so-called “energy efficient” appliances (which only means they don’t work nearly as well as they used to), to the hideously ugly, tiny cars rolling around on the streets. Green building codes are another sign, and believe it or not, the explosion of bike and walking paths all over the place is yet another sign of the movement.

When you hear terms like “smart growth,” “comprehensive planning,” “sustainable communities” and “visioning,” understand that these are communist code terms that are about nothing more than government control of land use, robbing us of our individual rights and freedoms, and redistributing our wealth to the federal government and to “developing” nations.

In Henry Lamb’s Freedom 21 publication, Mr. Lamb explains,

“The goals of sustainable development amount to a complete transformation of American society. Sustainable development embraces education, economics, and social justice, as well as environmental issues. Once the new collaborative decision process has been established, it can be used to develop policy in all these issue areas. Whenever public policy is developed by government-funded advocacy groups, administrators, or bureaucrats, there can be no accountability to the people. Private property rights are eroded and individual freedom evaporates.

Advocates of government control of land use have exerted their influence since long before the term ‘sustainable development’ was first uttered. The 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements uses the raw language: ‘Government control of land use is therefore indispensable.’ By 1992, the advocates of government control had learned that words matter, and rather than use words such as ‘government control of land use…’ they coined terms such as sustainable development, smart growth, and sustainable communities.

It matters not what euphemism is used to shield the reality of government control. Sustainable development, smart growth, and sustainable communities all describe a government-controlled society. Every time a public policy requires a private citizen to ask permission from government, another expression of freedom is destroyed.”

This is a broad rundown of the complex and detailed issue of the environmental whacko, “sustainable development” agenda, and it is important that we make an effort to become informed by studying the extensive amount of materials available on the Internet and elsewhere. The good news is that more and more people are becoming aware of this sinister movement and are working tirelessly to inform leaders at the local, state and federal levels. Tea Party groups are doing a good job of this, including our own local South Mississippi Tea Party, which has a special section on its website for Agenda 21 information and has hosted Agenda 21 educational events.

As with most issues in life, ignorance is our greatest liability. An uninformed citizenry is an enslaved citizenry. We must embrace the knowledge we need to combat these communistic efforts to rob our freedoms. The sustainable movement has infested the entire nation, and beating it back will take a massive effort. There is a ton of money and power involved in pushing this radical agenda, and when community leaders cannot resist the handout of federal taxpayer money grants, they place their whole area under the iron thumb of the tyrannical “green” movement.

Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have embraced this movement. In the story with which I opened this broadcast, one of our Republican Senators, Roger Wicker, was the one who presented the “green” award to the Ocean Springs housing development. He should know better, but apparently he does not.

A good place to start reversing this communist “sustainable” movement is in our local city councils and planning commissions. Many of these elected and appointed officials are ignorant of what these issues mean, and they need to be taught. As with other freedom-robbing initiatives of the communist Left, if we do nothing it will continue to grow ever more powerful.

I will close with another quote from Mr. Lamb’s Freedom 21 report,

“The current attack on America’s freedom is not with bombs and bullets from foreign tyrants. It is from an internal enemy of freedom that is just as vicious and much more sinister. America is a nation created expressly to defend and protect the freedom of its citizens. Any system of government that replaces that freedom with government control is an enemy.

Sustainable development, as defined in Agenda 21 and the documents published by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, cannot exist without government management and control. To the extent that local, state, and federal government yields to the demands of sustainable development, freedom is diminished. To the extent that local, state, and federal government rejects the principles of sustainable development, freedom is advanced.

The only power on earth sufficient to constrain a government out of control is the determination of an informed, involved, and inspired electorate, exercised at the ballot box.”

But all this is history.  SD lives on because it is useful in selling various policies.  Some examples are:

  1. Restrictions on the use of fossil fuels, under the guise of “saving the climate”
  2. Transfers of resources to less developed nations – now justified for climate resons (but of course, quite contrary to resource conservation)
  3. Striving for world government and UN sovereignty — all for “sustainability”,
  4. Promoting a green energy future, using a solar and wind,
  5. Advocating negative population growth, etc.

Among the worst policies being pushed with the help of SD is a scheme called Contraction and Convergence (C & C).  The idea is that every human is entitled to emit the same amount of CO2.  This of course translates into every being on earth using the same amount of energy — and, by inference, having the same income.  In other words, C & C is basically a policy for a giant global income redistribution.

Since the SD concept has been popularized, it has become a fashionable topic for research papers, especially in the social sciences.  We may yet live to see the day when trendy universities establish programs to teach SD — and eventually even departments of SD and endowed academic chairs.  Never underestimate the drive for expansion in the academic world.

For Earth Day 2011, the National Association of Scholars, composed mostly of Conservative-leaning academics,  released a Statement that critiques the campus sustainability movement. NAS president Peter Wood said:

“Sustainability sounds like a call for recycling and clean drinking water.   But its proponents are much more ambitious. For them, a sustainable society is one that replaces the market economy with top-down regulation. They present students a frightening story in which the earth is on the brink of disaster and immediate action is needed. This is a tactic aimed at silencing critics, shutting down debate, and mobilizing students who never get the opportunity to hear opposing views.”

Here are some excerpts from the Statement itself:

“Sustainability” is one of the key words of our time.  We are six years along in the United Nations’ “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.” In the United States, 677 colleges and universities presidents have committed themselves to a sustainability-themed “Climate Commitment.”  Sustainability is, by a large measure, the most popular social movement today in American higher education.  It is, of course, not just a campus movement, but also a ubiquitous presence in the K-12 curriculum, and a staple of community groups, political platforms, appeals to consumers, and corporate policy.

The sustainability movement arrived on campuses mainly at the invitation of college presidents and administrative staff in areas such as student activities and residence life.   That means that it largely escaped the scrutiny of faculty members and that it continues to enjoy a position of unearned authority.  In many instances, the movement advances by administrative fiat, backed up by outside advocacy groups and students recruited for their zeal in promoting the cause.    Agenda-driven organizations-such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment(ACUPCC)-have taken advantage of academic sensibilities to turn sustainability into what is in many cases, a campus fetish. Sustainability also gets promoted by resort to pledges, games, competitions, and a whole variety of psychological gimmicks that bypass serious intellectual inquiry.

Some results are relatively trivial. For example, at certain institutions, cafeteria trays have been banned to save food, water, and energy, leaving students and staff to juggle dishes, cups, and utensils as they move between counters and tables.  Many campuses have also banned the sale of disposable to reduce plastic waste.  Yet however laughable, such petty annoyances have a sinister penumbra.  They advertise a willingness to bully that creates a more generalized climate of intimidation, spilling over into other domains.

In practice, this means that sustainability is used as a means of promoting to students a view that capitalism and individualism are “unsustainable,” morally unworthy, and a present danger to the future of the planet.

Fascination with decline and ruin are nothing new in Western thought.  The sustainability movement combines a bureaucratic and regulatory impulse with an updated version of the Romantics’ preoccupation with the end of civilization, and with hints of the Christian apocalyptic tradition. These are the “end times” in the view of some sustainability advocates-or potentially so in the eyes of many others. The movement has its own versions of sin and redemption, and in many other respects has a quasi-religious character. For some of the adherents, the earth itself is treated as a sentient deity; others content themselves with the search for the transcendent in Nature.

As a creed among creeds, sustainability constitutes an upping of the ideological ante. Feminism, Afro-centrism, gay-liberation, and various other recent fads and doctrines, whatever else they were, were secular, speaking merely to politics and culture. The sustainability movement reaches beyond that, having nothing less than the preservation of life on earth at its heart.

The religious creeds of faculty members and students are their own business, but we have reason for concern when dogmatic beliefs are smuggled into the curriculum and made a basis for campus programs as though they were mere extensions of scientific facts.

The sustainability movement is, in a word, unsustainable.  It runs too contrary to the abiding purposes of higher education; it is too rife with internal contradictions; and it is too contrary to the environmental, economic, and social facts to endure indefinitely.

George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff. At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; and advisor to George W. Bush in his 2000 election).

In a 2018 released book by Tom DeWeese, a recognized expert on private property rights, he describes in detail the process being used at every level of government to reorganize our society through the destruction of private property.

According to DeWeese, the American system of free enterprise, private property ownership and individual liberty is under attack by a political force that, while plainly out in the open for all to see, is little understood and mostly ignored. Yet private non-governmental organizations (NGOs), city planners and federal agencies have teamed up specifically to change human society under the banner of Sustainable Development. It is gaining power in every state, county, and community under the false threat of Environmental Armageddon, demanding that we completely reorganize our economic system, our representative form of government, and our individual lifestyle.

In Sustainable, author Tom DeWeese clearly makes the case that such policies are a war on free enterprise, private property ownership, and individual choice.

  • Why private property matters
  • The only real solution to eradicating poverty
  • The lost definition of property rights
  • Who’s behind the transformation?
  • 10 real questions city planners should be asking the public
  • 10 vital questions to ask before signing a conservation easement
  • 10 facts every community needs to know about regional plans
  • Who takes the “Walk of Shame” in the destruction of property rights?
  • How to restore private property rights
  • …And much more

The assault on the inner cities – destroying hope

Low income and ethnic neighborhoods have traditions, history and family ties. Yet city Smart Growth programs, funded by federal grants, attack with bulldozers, destroying small local businesses and private property. Massive high-rise condos and corporate businesses replace the original residents who are now unable to afford to live in their old neighborhood. Their fate is to be forced into government housing and welfare programs, from which there is little ability to leave or plan lives of their own.

Continued on next page…

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA, created with much fanfare by Richard Nixon in 1970, was an agency crippled at birth by inadequate funding, heavy staffing from corporate indoctrinated USDA disciples, political hypocrisy, and laws protecting industry profits above all. These understaffed and overloaded scientists rubber stamped hundreds of outdated and fraudulent pesticide studies every year resulting in further fraud and cover up in defense of bad science. FDA whistleblower scientist Adrian Gross alerted the EPA that Industrial BioTest Labs had been routinely faking tests, falsifying data, and altering results for years. Billions of pounds of pesticides lacking valid testing are sold in the US each year alone, and the active ingredient (typically 1% of product) is only the tip of the iceberg, the remainder is a trade secret stew of untested, unknown “inert” ingredients that are often more toxic than the active ingredients. Fraud, hypocrisy, cronyism, and whistleblower retribution still dominate the EPA corrupt culture today.

The lofty motto of the Environmental Protection Agency is “protecting people and the environment.” In practice, however, EPA bureaucrats faithfully protect their own people and preserve the government’s cesspool of manipulation, cover-ups, and cronyism. Here’s a video exposing the EPA’s massive military arsenal:

The EPA has an impact on every American with a tsunami of regulation that is both costly and arguably infringing on our constitutional rights.  Moreover the agency has presided over an attempt to bankrupt the coal industry, close coal burning plants, and drive up to cost of motor fuels — negatively impacting job creation, the economic recovery and America’s energy security.  The estimated costs of EPA regulations range from $353 billion (Competitive Enterprise Institute) to $460 billion (The American Action Forum) and are growing like a malignant cancer.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” Richard Feynman famously declared in 1966. Ever quick to challenge accepted wisdom, he distinguished the laudable ignorance of science, forever seeking unattainable certainties, from the dangerous ignorance of experts who professed such certainty. Twenty years later, he would drop a rubber ring into a glass of ice water to show a panel of clueless rocket experts how willful ignorance of basic temperature effects likely caused the Challenger shuttle disaster (1).

Experts with delusions of certainty create imitative forms of science, he warned, producing “the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisors.” (2) Feynman’s warning against faith in the phony trappings of “cargo cult science” fell on deaf ears. Policies affecting every aspect of our lives are now based on dangerous forms of ignorance.

A prime case in point is the noble edifice of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where a high-ranking EPA official was recently jailed and fined for collecting pay and bonuses for decades of non-existent work while he claimed to be working elsewhere for the CIA. Such long-standing fraud would hardly come as a surprise to Evaggelos Vallianatos, who toiled for a quarter of a century in the EPA’s Pesticide Division, ostensibly responsible for protecting human health and the environment from commercial poisons. His book, Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA, documents a culture of fraud and corruption infesting every corner and closet of the agency.

Vallianatos points out that one of the fledgling agency’s greatest handicaps was its initial staffing with personnel from USDA, steeped in the religion of corporate agriculture and lethal technologies. With USDA staff came also USDA’s outdated pesticide registrations, which were to be reviewed and reregistered by EPA.  In addition, hundreds of new pesticide applications accumulated every year, each supported by industry-produced safety studies to meet new federal requirements. Hired as scientists, EPA staffers spent their time cutting and pasting industry studies and conclusions into rubber-stamped registration approvals. Under industry-crafted laws, once a pesticide was registered, it could never be unregistered without massive, unequivocal evidence of harm.

As if such misuse of science weren’t bad enough, audits by FDA and EPA soon found that most of the thousands of industry safety studies used to approve pesticide registrations were fraudulent. Alerted by FDA scientist Adrian Gross, EPA had discovered in 1976 that Industrial BioTest Laboratories [IBT], which had conducted many of the pesticide safety tests submitted to EPA by manufacturers, had been routinely faking tests, falsifying data, and altering results for years.  Subsequent investigations of other testing laboratories found similar practices in more than half the labs whose tests supported EPA registrations of pesticides.

“IBT was not a unique case of scientific fraud,” Vallianatos writes, “it was emblematic of a dark and deviant scientific culture, a ‘brave new science’ with deep roots throughout agribusiness, the chemical industry, universities, and the government.” (3)

In 1979, during the seven years of EPA dithering over this scandal, Vallianatos came to work at EPA. He soon learned that not a single pesticide registration was to be canceled due to fraudulent or nonexistent test data. Instead, he notes, EPA’s reaction was to outsource science. It shut down its own testing laboratories, closed its own libraries of toxicity data on thousands of chemicals, and outsourced all evaluations of industry-sponsored studies. “The unspoken understanding in this outsourcing of government functions has been the near certainty of finding industry data satisfactory – all the time.” This issue is relevant today, given that chemicals such as 2, 4-D and glyphosate (Roundup™), whose uses have been vastly increased by GMO practices, were originally registered on the basis of invalid IBT studies.

During Vallianatos’s first year at EPA, 1980, some 1.1 billion pounds of pesticide active ingredients were applied to U.S. food crops, a number that does not include home and garden uses, parklands, golf courses, playing fields, and municipal landscapes. In 2011, two billion pounds of pesticides were sold in the U.S.  Most if not all of those pesticides lacked valid testing data then, and still lack such data today.  Furthering the fraud, Vallianatos points out, the active ingredient is only the tip of the iceberg, being as little as one percent of the product; the remainder is a trade secret stew of untested, unknown “inert” ingredients that are often more toxic than the active ingredients. What he calls “The Big Business of Fraudulent Science” has replaced even the semblance of environmental protection.

Poison Spring chronicles some of the consequences of that fraud in an agency snared in its own tangled lies: cover-ups of dioxin levels in drinking water and in dead babies; routine suppression of data linking pesticides to soaring rates of cancer, birth defects, and chronic disease; industry access to everything; “revolving door” administrators serving corporate bosses; political appointees dismantling EPA labs and data libraries to dispose of damaging evidence; the cutting of research funds for nontoxic alternatives; the harsh retribution visited on whistleblowers; and ever and again, bureaucrats, with full knowledge of the consequences, setting policies that result in death and suffering. For 25 years, Vallianatos saw and documented it all.

“EPA officials know global chemical and agribusiness industries are manufacturing science,” Vallianatos writes. “They know their products are dangerous…. [EPA] scientists find themselves working in a roomful of funhouse mirrors, plagiarizing industry studies and cutting and pasting the findings of industry studies as their own.”

“This entire book is, in a sense, about a bureaucracy going mad,” Vallianatos adds.

Bureaucracy does not go mad by itself, however. Public indifference to the ignorance of experts and public tolerance of lies are what allow such madness to flourish, enabled by the scientific community’s silence. Inexorably, Vallianatos found, “science and policy themselves have been made a prop to the pesticides industry and agribusiness.”

Such monumental fraud demands drastic remedies, which Vallianatos bravely urges: rebuild an EPA completely independent from industry and politics, remove incentives for huge scale, chemically-dependent corporate agriculture, and address the underlying problem by encouraging small family farms and agriculture without chemical warfare.

“Traditional (and often organic) farmers – until seventy-five years ago, the only farmers there were – are slowly beginning to make a comeback.  They have always known how to raise crops and livestock without industrial poisons,” Vallianatos points out.  “They are the seed for a future harvest of good food, a healthy natural world, and democracy in rural America – and the world.”

These are facts, and this is a book that scientists and citizens alike ignore at great peril.

EPA Head Carol Browner Email and other Scandals

In 2001, former EPA head Carol Browner oversaw the destruction of her computer files on her last day in office under the Clinton administration — in clear violation of a judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. Browner ordered a computer technician: “I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files.” In 2003, the agency was held in contempt and fined more than $300,000 in connection with another email destruction incident under Browner’s watch.

As President Obama’s energy czar, Browner went on to bully auto execs “to put nothing in writing, ever” regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated on a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. She was also singled out by Obama’s own independent oil-spill commission for repeatedly misrepresenting scientists’ findings and doctoring data to justify the administration’s draconian drilling moratorium.

Browner previously had been caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to more than 100 left-wing environmental organizations. She abused her office to orchestrate a political campaign by liberal groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform.

Below, Alex Newman of Infowars reports on the EPA’s conspiracy with the UN, the State Department & the National Security Council to control every aspect of your life using the pretense of environmentalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxU7G7OoxBw

 

EPA Head Lisa Jackson’s ‘Richard Windsor‘ Email Scandal

The EPA chief from 2009-2013, Ms. Lisa Jackson, committed extensive violations of law that featured a fantasy administrator, ‘Richard Windsor’, and ‘his’ email account.  The account was established and used by Ms. Jackson to camouflage controversial EPA processes, discussions, decisions and accountability – a persona obviously created to evade record-keeping and disclosure requirements.  The known evidence suggests violations of the Freedom of Information Act, mail and wire fraud laws. For perspective a little recent history is in order. Lisa Jackson, who departed the EPA for a job at Apple in 2013, stated in November of 2011 that,

“…What EPA’s role is to do is to level the playing field so that pollution costs are not exported to the population but rather companies have to look at pollution potential of any fuel or any process or any plant or utility when their making investment decisions.”

Simply translated Ms. Jackson, a board member of he Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scheme while EPA chief, makes clear that her job and the EPA’s were to hurt companies/industries that produce energy counter to the wishes of the Obama administration (and the left’s agenda). Ms. Jackson also demonstrates a very low economic IQ, since higher costs incurred by energy companies will be passed to end users/consumers.

Due to a whistleblower and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Christopher Horner’s investigative work a federal court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) ruled that the EPA turn over 12,000 “Richard Windsor” emails. The EPA doesn’t produce any of the fake e-mails even though they are required by law to do so. When specifically required by court order, the EPA seeks endless delays; and, when the delaying tactics prove fruitless, the EPA then fails to provide either the number or the type of e-mails required and “who may have delayed the release dates for hot-button environmental regulations until after the Nov. 6, 2012, presidential election” according to Mark Levin and his vigilant Landmark Legal Foundation who pled to federal district judge Royce Lamberth to sanction the EPA for the cover up. Levin minced no words: “The EPA is a toxic waste dump for lawlessness and disdain for the Constitution.”

In fact, the EPA even awarded the “scholar of ethical behavior” award, among other professional recognitions, to this dude who does not exist and was created merely to unethically circumvent FOIA requests.

In addition to the ‘Richard Windsor’ email scandal, Ex-EPA Region 8 administrator James Martin appears to be the only casualty of the agency. Martin conducted business on a private email account, and then got caught lying about it before a federal court (Hillary Clinton says Hi!). He abruptly resigned (for “personal reasons”) very shortly thereafter. Chris Horner uncovered similar usage of private email accounts by EPA administrators for Regions 9 and 2. The behavior was so widespread that the Senate EPW minority staff (in the 113th Congress) wrote a report about it.

Textgate

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy conducted business via text and then destroyed the records of her correspondence, in blatant contravention of federal recordkeeping laws. EPA’s inspector general found in December 2016 McCarthy deleted all but one of the 5,000 text messages on her government phone, in violation of federal records laws. Read a brief summary here.

In fact, the report found EPA only archived 86 of 3.1 million text messages sent and received in 2015. Investigators were only alerted to the possibility McCarthy hadn’t preserved her text messages because of a lawsuit the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed. The “[d]efendant has decided to formally notify the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) about the potential loss of federal records relating to text messages,” EPA admitted in court.

EPA Treatment of FOIA Requests

The Freedom of Information Act allows citizens to petition federal agencies for information. However, not all information is subject to these requests; the statute stipulates a number of exemptions. And of these exemptions, the broadest (and, therefore, most vulnerable to abuse) is known as the “b(5)” exemption, after its statutory provision (5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5)). Indeed, Obama’s EPA has broken new ground in the application of “b(5),” such that the censor’s pen renders entire FOIA productions black. I wish I were kidding—we post the evidence here. It’s a Kafkaesque.

According to research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose fellow Chris Horner uncovered “Richard Windsor:”

Specifically, CEI asserts that the EPA is waiving FOIA fees for what it describes as left-wing groups – like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and EarthJustice – while it “systematically denies waivers for groups on the right,” according to CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner.

Horner said his research shows that from January 2012 to Spring 2013 the fees for “green” groups were waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, the EPA effectively or expressly denied his request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA instances over this same time period. Horner’s appeals of the EPA decisions to deny his fee waivers were rejected.

Further review, Horner said, established that “green” groups proved successful in getting their fees waived 92 percent of the time.

Sue and Settle Scam

The “Sue and settle” scam, has become a common tool of the EPA’s to impose oppressive mandates on targeted businesses with incalculable costs.  To implement the scam, the EPA has an environmental or advocacy group file a suit claiming the federal government has failed to satisfy some EPA regulatory requirement.  The EPA can choose to defend itself or settle the suit.  The “solution” is to put in place a “court ordered regulation” requested by the advocacy group…neat, relatively fast and illegal.

Continued on next page…

Agenda 21

a United Nations globalist program as a result of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 introduced with goals for the 21st century relating to the world economy, the environment and education. Agenda 21 is most known for its aims at combating extreme deforestation and protecting fragile environments and maintaining biodiversity among them. Signed by multiple nations, including the United States, the UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program is an urban planning “action plan” which calls for government to eventually take control of all land use without leaving any decision making in the hands of private property owners. The overall intent of Agenda 21 is to expand government power at the expense of individual liberties by making the population more dependent on city infrastructure controlled by the government.

The United Nations and its mostly autocratic member regimes have big plans for your life, your children, your country, and your world. And those plans are not limited to the coercive “climate” agreement recently concluded in Paris.

While the establishment media in the United States was hyping ISIS, football, and of course “global warming,” virtually every national government/dictatorship on the planet met at the 70th annual General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York to adopt a draconian 15-year master plan for the planet. Top globalists such as former NATO chief Javier Solana, a socialist, are celebrating the plan, which the summit unanimously “approved,” as the next “Great Leap Forward” — yes, the old campaign slogan of the Chinese Communist Party.

The master plan is comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 specific “targets” to be foisted on all of humanity — literally all of it, as the plan itself states explicitly. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But if you love liberty, self-government, free markets, or the U.S. Constitution, you will almost certainly be wishing that the UN would leave you behind.

Officially dubbed “Agenda 2030,” the UN plot, as its full title suggests, is aimed at “transforming” the world. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct “Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called “sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive.

“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” Ironically, the preamble even claims the UN goals will “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty” and “heal” the planet — or, as the planet is also referred to in the document, “Mother Earth.” Not-so-subtly purporting to usurp the role of God, the UN even claimed that the “future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands.”

Speaking on September 25 at the opening ceremony of the confab that adopted Agenda 2030, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong-un, Raul Castro, Robert Mugabe, and other despots who hold great sway with most of the regimes comprising the United Nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.” “We need action from everyone, everywhere,” Ban said, pointing to the “guide” offered by the 17 SDGs. “They are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.” “We must use the goals to transform the world,” Ban continued. “Institutions will have to become fit for a grand new purpose.”

The Agenda 2030 agreement makes the audacity of the scheme clear, too. “This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance,” boasts the document.  “Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda,” the agreement continues. “What we are announcing today — an Agenda for global action for the next fifteen years — is a charter for people and planet in the twenty-first century.”

The Agenda

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.

Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire  and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

In truth, such “lifestyles and consumption patternsare sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving “sustainability.” The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.

Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring “healthy lives” and “well-being,” is: “Achieve universal health coverage,” including “vaccines for all.” Universal access to “mental health,” along with “sexual and reproductive health-care services” — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their “national strategies and programmes,” the agreement demands.

It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the “keystone” of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it “socialism,” Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a “great leap forward” by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even “approved.”

But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls “agents of change,” ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the agreement explains.

The sort of activists that the UN hopes to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by “sustainable development” — population control, central planning, global governance, and more — the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone.

“Sustainable” children for global citizenship in the new order will be accomplished via what the UN misleadingly refers to as “education.” In the UN document the word “education” alone is mentioned more than 20 times. And throughout the agreement, the UN openly advocates the use of schools to indoctrinate all of humanity into a new set of values, attitudes, and beliefs in preparation for the new “green” and “sustainable” world order. The UN’s education agenda also puts sex “education” front and center. “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services [abortion and contraception], including for family planning, information and education,” the document explains.

How much will Agenda 2030 cost? Various figures have been thrown around by UN bureaucrats regarding the monetary costs of the plan, generally ranging between $3 trillion and $5 trillion per year.

Yes, trillions. In the “From Billions to Trillions” report released by the World Bank in July 2015, the globalist outfit, a key player in Agenda 2030, conceded: “To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the global community needs to move the discussion from ‘Billions’ in ODA [Official Development Assistance] to ‘Trillions’ in investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global, in both capital and capacity.”

But the money needed to implement Agenda 2030 and other UN schemes is only part of the cost. Other parts include the loss of our national independence and freedom that the rise of global governance and global socialism would surely entail. Revealingly, empowering dictators to help in global governance is openly touted by Agenda 2030. The document states, “We recommit to broadening and strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries [the regimes ruling those countries] — including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries — in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance.”

Powerful Promoters

When Agenda 2030 was adopted at the 70th annual UN General Assembly confab in New York City on September 25, the UN plot to re-engineer civilization was ushered in with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from murderous communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN’s controversial goals on their subjects.

It all sounded so wonderful to some of the world’s most brutal dictators that they could hardly contain their glee. “This agenda promises a brave new world, a new world which we have to consciously construct, a new world that calls for the creation of a new global citizen,” gushed Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe, the genocidal mass-murderer enslaving Zimbabwe who also serves as chairman of the African Union. “I want to believe that we are up to this task that we have voluntarily and collectively committed ourselves to. Our success, and in particular the promise of a new world that awaits us, depends upon this commitment.” He also promised to vigorously impose the UN Agenda 2030 on the starving and impoverished victims his regime lords over with Agenda 2030-style policies. The communist Castro regime vowed to work with socialist Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and other tyrants to impose the UN goals on their victims, too — all with financing from Western taxpayers.

Continued on next page…

Chemtrails

A purported science to cool the earth from global warming (a deliberate hoax to create global fear) where military, commercial, and private contracted airplanes spray aerosol throughout the skies. The real agenda is much more sinister. Aluminum oxide, barium, and other chemicals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead are being sprayed into the atmosphere all coming down to the earth eventually and destroying plant life and causing asthma, Alzheimer’s’ disease, Morgellons disease and other problems in humans and animals. A high placed military insider claims that bacteria and viruses are freeze-dried and placed on fine filaments for release (then activated by the sun), and Dr. Hildegarde Staninger, a former government scientist, has shown nano technological weapons to be present.

The familiar aviation term “contrail” is a contraction of the two words “condensation” and “trail”. Similarly, a “chemtrail” is a logical application of the contraction rule where two similar words, “chemical” and “trail” are spliced together as a single recognizable word. The term “chemical trail” became part of the NASA lexicon when published in the document “Chemical Aspects of Upper Atmosphere Research”. Excerpt below:

“Langley research center released tetramethyl-lead vapor trails in lower heterosphere”

“Thus, in the search for a satisfactory chemiluminescent agent, the Langley Research Center released tetramethyl-lead vapor trails in the lower heterosphere during two night-time (early morning) experiments on January 22, 1964. In each experiment about 22 Ibs of liquid Pb(CH 3) were carried aloft by the type of rocket shown in figure 6. The visible chemical trail extended from an altitude of about 89 km. to 113 km…”

Source: NASA: “Chemical Aspects of Upper Atmospher Research” Published May 8, 1964, Page 6 and 7
By Richard A. Hord and Harold B. Tolefson (PDF)

A “chemtrail” is a combination of the words, “chemical” and “trail” are spliced together as a single recognizable word. The term “chemical trail” became part of the NASA lexicon when published in the document “Chemical Aspects of Upper Atmosphere Research”. Contrary to rumors of “conspiracy theory”, the Department of Defense invented and published the term, “Chemtrails” in 1990 as the title to a chemistry manual for new pilots attending the esteemed US Air Force Academy. With the manual funded by the American taxpayer, the term “chemtrails” continues to be used by observers to describe unusual jet aircraft or rocket emissions. The term used for the manual appears to bear a different use of the contraction than is used today.

The heavy spraying began in NATO countries in the late 90s, but today chemtrails are being recorded pretty much everywhere, from Russia to Brazil, South Korea to Cuba. This is a program of extraordinary scope and importance. However, while we know a chemtrail program exists, there is very little hard information on how it functions and what its goals are.

Commercial airliners are involved in spraying. In the very beginning, the aerosols were sprayed solely by military planes, but now the program has been expanded and commercial airliners have been outfitted with aerosol units controlled by computers and satellites. Photos provide evidence of this, like this Lufthansa jet flying over the US.

In the airline industry, the operation is known as Project Cloverfield. In 2000, a high level executive at an American airline revealed his office was visited by two men from an unnamed government agency:

‘They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft. When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them, they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we weren’t cleared for it…We were made to sign non-disclosure forms that basically stated that we would go to prison if we told anyone what we knew.’

Delivery by commercial aircraft raises the possibility that many countries have not given consent to being sprayed, and may be unaware it’s even happening.

We, the people, are under attack by a small group of mad scientists, out-of-control government agencies and profit-seeking billionaires pretending to “save the earth” from global warming. These “global control-freaks” want to manipulate weather patterns – in order to dominate the Earth’s resources. In reality, military programs like HAARP and chemtrails which over-heat the atmosphere and poison the sky (and farmland) seriously threaten all life on this planet. What if global warming was just a hoax or worse? Are these toxic substances in chemtrails, GMO’s and vaccines being (deliberately) created to reduce the world population?

According to many geo-scientists, the chemtrail program consists of spraying 10 to 20 million tons of aluminum oxide, barium, and other chemicals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead into the atmosphere to cool down the planet. This program, also known as “Project Cloverleaf”, is one of the most secretive programs within the airline industry of the United States. But, many of the pilots don’t even know what (or why) they are actually spraying! Naturally, the question you have to ask is: why are they doing this to us?

Simply put, weather control (through chemtrail spraying) can be used as a weapon against any country or government by creating drought and famine. Obviously, this would destroy the ability of a nation to grow food and remain independent. Once a country is desperate for food, it allows other governments to impose their rule and authority in exchange for rain or other resources.

A water-filled upright human is a sizeable antenna. And since all moving electrons generate electrical current, all those electromagnetic waves inundating our everyday lives pass into our bodies, where they each generate an electric current. These induced electric currents change the charge on which our complex bioelectrical body/brain/heart network operates to maintain our health and vitality.

In October 2011, scientists from around the world gathered in Orlando, Florida for the American Association for Aerosol Research conference. Most importantly, there was a lecture called: “Aerosols, Clouds and Precipitation”. These (crazy) scientists discussed how different aerosols (toxic materials) could create cloud cover to reflect sunlight away from the earth and increase (or decrease) rain fall in certain regions of the world.

Who benefits from weather modification and weather control programs? Consider this: Since 1997, weather has been traded as a commodity at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Many experts agree, this is exactly when geo-engineering programs rose in popularity. Since commodities are directly affected by the weather – predicting these trends could be very profitable to those individuals who have the ability to control or manipulate our weather.

It is well-known among contemporary researchers that a modern-day population control agenda is aggressively under way. There are two modalities to population control:

1. Sterilization: Sterilization slows population growth. If reproduction falls below a factor of 2.1, then population begins decreasing.

2. Murder: (genocide, abortion, etc.) Ending life is an obvious method of population reduction, but if this modality is being executed as a matter of public policy, then it must be done in ways that do not make it known to the public.

Weather manipulation is a daily occurrence – Chemtrails are used in conjunction with HAARP for geo-engineering (the technical term for weather control). Much is written about the ability to create disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis against an enemy, but we don’t realize that weather patterns are manipulated all the time. Scott Stevens was a TV weatherman in the US but quit his job upon realizing that this was happening on a nightly and daily basis.

GAMBLING ON FOOD: ‘WEATHER DERIVATIVES”

Global warming is the cover story for the increasingly severe and bizarre weather worldwide.

Geo-engineering is used to force GMO crops on the world. Manufactured floods and droughts damage harvests and put farmers out of business.

Monsanto has the patent for GMO seeds that are drought and flood resistant, as well as resistant to the poisonous effects of aluminum, one of the key metals in chemtrails. Any farmer who refuses to grow GMO crops will not be able to guarantee a good harvest and will go out of business. Even worse, Monsanto’s end game is to force what are termed ‘Terminator’ seeds on farmers worldwide. These crops don’t produce seeds, meaning the farmer has to buy new seeds from Monsanto every planting season!

Weather Derivatives are chemtrail insurance. – You may wonder how the big players protect their interests from weather warfare. Say, how does George Soros, who owns thousands of acres of farmland in America, protect his profits from engineered drought?

Companies use financial instruments to hedge against risk of adverse weather conditions. They first appeared in the late-nineties, the same time the heavy spraying started! Michael Agne, a trader at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, explains how they work:

‘You’re betting there’s going to be a weather disaster within a particular time-frame, at a particular location, and when it does happen there’s going to be a big pay-off.’ Obviously, insiders can make big bucks making bets based on the geo-engineering timetable.

CREATING A SICKLY DEPENDENT POPULATION

Chemtrails are a ‘soft kill’ operation – Soft kill attacks primarily aim to disable and weaken the enemy, not kill him. As Dr. Len Horowitz has explained, wars are an inefficient way to lower population numbers because they destroy infrastructure. The preferable scenario is to create a sick population dependent on the military-medical-industrial complex for their health. In this way, you have population control, make vast fortunes doing it and keep the infrastructure intact.

Chemtrails are a multi-pronged attack.

Firstly, the metallic salts used in the aerosols are highly toxic and require our bodies to waste tremendous amounts of energy removing them. Millions of people cannot do it. In the last ten years, respiratory disease in the US has moved from 8th to 3rd highest cause of death. Asthma rates have more than doubled in the western world and Alzheimer’s’ disease, a condition that is caused by aluminum poisoning, has also skyrocketed.

The second thing is the release of diseases. A high placed military insider claims that bacteria and viruses are freeze-dried and placed on fine filaments for release. The metals released along with the diseases heat up from the sun, creating a perfect environment for the bacteria and viruses to thrive in the air supply. In addition…

Must Watch VIDEO

Even more crazy and fearsome is a revelation by Barry Trower, an expert in microwave technology. He discusses below the ability to revive viruses that are even hundreds of years old with microwave frequency, and suggests that they can be sprayed (like they did throughout the 50’s with germ warfare technology) and a virus such as the bubonic plague can stay dormant until they activate it – perhaps using HAARP or other microwave technology to do so at the time of their choosing.

 

Third, chemtrails contain nano technological weapons. Surprisingly, this fact has remained so low-key in the alternative media. It is well proven by researchers like Dr. Hildegarde Staninger and former government scientist Clifford Carnicom.

The nanotech consists of genetically modified organisms that are basically bio-robots. When we inhale them, they take up residence in our bodies and live as parasites. When the infestation becomes advanced, the individual develops what is termed Morgellons disease. He is so weak that he can barely do anything and suffers an array of bizarre and ghastly symptoms: scabs that don’t heal, hair that falls out and is replaced by pseudo hair and unceasing crawling sensations beneath the skin.

Morgellons is a new condition that has appeared in the last decade – the same time the heavy spraying kicked in! There are an estimated 60,000+ sufferers in the US alone, and their symptoms are chronicled by the Morgellons Research Foundation.

Recommended Podcast:

Jamie LeeSofia Smallstorm interviews Jamie Lee, a adventurer, blogger, author and activist in the alternative realm.  A former Wall Streeter, Lee now lives in northern California, pursuing health and organic farming.  The skies in this region took him into a thorough exploration of geoengineering, which resulted in his second book – Geoengineering a.k.a Chemtrails: Humanity’s 6th Great Extinction Event. Lee and Smallstorm are both well studied in geoengineering / chemtrails and discuss nanotechnology (1/80,000th the sthickness of human hair) and how these self-replicating nanobots can penetrate the blood-brain barrier and re-assemble inside the bodies nervous system where radiofrequency wave technology can then be used to alter our health.

Sophia Smallstorm goes deeper into nanotechnology here:

BIO WARFARE

There is evidence that the nanotechnology in the aerosols creates genetically modified red blood cells. Clifford Carnicom has found these cells in the atmosphere and in the blood samples of most people he tests. They are quite unlike normal red blood cells; they can grow outside of the body in a petri dish, survive high temperatures and withstand being doused in acid. Clearly, this is highly sophisticated bio warfare!

We don’t know for sure what purpose they serve, but the answer may have been provided by Ray Kurtwell, one of the biggest names in the transhumanism movement. In a recent speech he said: ‘In the next 25 years we will have bloodcell -sized devices that go inside your body and keep you healthy from inside, that go in your brain and interact with your biological neurons and merge with our biological intelligence.’

When an establishment scientist tells us with certainty that something will exist, assume that it already does. There is a chance that the ‘blood-cell sized devices’ that Kurtwell mentioned are the weaponized red blood cells being discovered, and that mind alteration is currently underway.

How do the perpetrators protect themselves? The Illuminati never launch an attack without making sure they’re protected first. For instance, President Bush took an anthrax vaccine two weeks before the anthrax attacks in 2001. They may drink a solution once a day that removes the toxins from their bloodstream, or have a chip put in their arm that acts like a tiny dialysis machine.

Many involved in the operation probably don’t know the true agenda. Dr. Bill Deagle was a doctor at Buckley air force base and claims to have treated the pilots who were spraying the aerosols. He says that ‘95% of them told me they were up there spraying to reflect the sun to stop global warming, so most of them are dumb enough to believe that garbage.’

CONCLUSION

The Illuminati are vandalizing the skies, as visibly as a graffiti artist spraying a wall, and yet most of us remain oblivious. Like little else, chemtrails bring home just how desperate our predicament is.

Despite this, I think anti-chemtrail activism has tremendous potential. The existence of the operation is easy to prove and we have the testimony of many whistleblowers. The protest movement can continue to generate momentum because chemtrails will persist for decades to come.

In the meantime you and your children are being conditioned to believe these are just normal by subliminal brainwashing messages:

The original source of this article is Global Research | Copyright © Rady Ananda, Global Research, 2013

[Stellar_video_player id=”8″]

Chronological History of Events Related to GeoEngineering / Chemtrails

After mocking “chemtrails” for over a decade, global elites suddenly announce geoengineering plan to “dim the sun” with aerial spraying

After mocking “chemtrails” for over a decade, global elites suddenly announce geoengineering plan to “dim the sun” with aerial spraying

Back in 2008, a news publication called Phoenix Times News published a story mocking people who believe in so-called “chemtrails,” calling the concept of geoengineering a “strong competitor for dumbest conspiracy theory ever.” There’s simply no such thing as chemical aerosols that are blasted from airplanes, and that remain suspended in the atmosphere, we were all continually told – with a constant emphasis on the alleged ...
Read More
Research Study: Evidence Proves that Air Pollution Affects the Placenta of Developing Babies

Research Study: Evidence Proves that Air Pollution Affects the Placenta of Developing Babies

Women tend to be even more careful about their lifestyle and diet when they’re pregnant, but there’s one thing they might be forgetting. According to a study, even unborn infant may be exposed to air pollutants that reach the placenta via the bloodstream of pregnant women. The press release revealed that researchers from Queen Mary University of London were the first to gather evidence that “soot from polluted air can travel ...
Read More
Study: Geoengineering Could Lead To Lower Crop Yields

Study: Geoengineering Could Lead To Lower Crop Yields

A new study has determined that spraying the skies with chemicals to combat global warming will likely come with the unintended side-effect of reducing crop yields. Researchers with the University of California, Berkeley, have published a new study which calls into question the scientific efforts to block sunlight via climate engineering, also known as geoengineering. Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale manipulation of the weather and ...
Read More
Hurricane Harvey Makes Landfall in Houston, TX and Stalls Resulting in Massive Flood Damage

Hurricane Harvey Makes Landfall in Houston, TX and Stalls Resulting in Massive Flood Damage

Hurricane Harvey of 2017 is tied with 2005's Hurricane Katrina as the costliest tropical cyclone on record, inflicting $125 billion in damage, primarily from catastrophic rainfall-triggered flooding in the Houston metropolitan area and Southeast Texas. It was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year span in which no hurricanes made landfall at the intensity of ...
Read More
Pesticide kills millions of bees in S.C.

Pesticide kills millions of bees in S.C.

Zika pesticide kills millions of bees in South Carolina. Millions of honeybees have been killed in South Carolina after pesticide was sprayed to kill off mosquitoes that could possibly be harbouring the harmless Zika virus. Beekeeper Juanita Stanley at Flowertown Farm said she had no warning from Dorchester County officials ...
Read More

Agenda 2030

A UN plot adopted in 2015 that, as its full title suggests, is aimed at “transforming” the world – and not in a good way. The program is a follow-up to the last 15-year UN plan, the defunct “Millennium Development Goals,” or MDGs. It also dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But the combined Agenda 2030 goals for achieving what is euphemistically called “sustainable development” represent previous UN plans on steroids — deeper, more radical, more draconian, and more expensive. The endgame is global socialism.

While the establishment media in the United States was hyping ISIS, football, and of course “global warming,” virtually every national government / dictatorship on the planet met at the 70th annual General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York from September 25th to October 2nd of 2015 to adopt a draconian 15-year master plan for the planet. Top globalists such as former NATO chief Javier Solana, a socialist, are celebrating the plan, which the summit unanimously “approved,” as the next “Great Leap Forward” — yes, the old campaign slogan of the Chinese Communist Party.

The master plan is comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) with 169 specific “targets” to be foisted on all of humanity — literally all of it, as the plan itself states explicitly. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind,” reads the UN manifesto, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But if you love liberty, self-government, free markets, or the U.S. Constitution, you will almost certainly be wishing that the UN would leave you behind.

“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” Ironically, the preamble even claims the UN goals will “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty” and “heal” the planet — or, as the planet is also referred to in the document, “Mother Earth.” Not-so-subtly purporting to usurp the role of God, the UN even claimed that the “future of humanity and of our planet lies in our hands.”

Speaking on September 25 at the opening ceremony of the confab that adopted Agenda 2030, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong-un, Raul Castro, Robert Mugabe, and other despots who hold great sway with most of the regimes comprising the United Nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.” “We need action from everyone, everywhere,” Ban said, pointing to the “guide” offered by the 17 SDGs. “They are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.” “We must use the goals to transform the world,” Ban continued. “Institutions will have to become fit for a grand new purpose.”

The Agenda 2030 agreement makes the audacity of the scheme clear, too. “This is an Agenda of unprecedented scope and significance,” boasts the document.  “Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavor across such a broad and universal policy agenda,” the agreement continues. “What we are announcing today — an Agenda for global action for the next fifteen years — is a charter for people and planet in the twenty-first century.”

The Agenda

Perhaps the single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.

Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire  and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

In truth, such “lifestyles and consumption patterns” are sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving “sustainability.” The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.

Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring “healthy lives” and “well-being,” is: “Achieve universal health coverage,” including “vaccines for all.” Universal access to “mental health,” along with “sexual and reproductive health-care services” — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their “national strategies and programmes,” the agreement demands.

It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the “keystone” of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it “socialism,” Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a “great leap forward” by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even “approved.”

But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls “agents of change,” ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” the agreement explains.

The sort of activists that the UN hopes to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by “sustainable development” — population control, central planning, global governance, and more — the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone.

“Sustainable” children for global citizenship in the new order will be accomplished via what the UN misleadingly refers to as “education.” In the UN document the word “education” alone is mentioned more than 20 times. And throughout the agreement, the UN openly advocates the use of schools to indoctrinate all of humanity into a new set of values, attitudes, and beliefs in preparation for the new “green” and “sustainable” world order. The UN’s education agenda also puts sex “education” front and center. “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services [abortion and contraception], including for family planning, information and education,” the document explains.

How much will Agenda 2030 cost? Various figures have been thrown around by UN bureaucrats regarding the monetary costs of the plan, generally ranging between $3 trillion and $5 trillion per year.

Yes, trillions. In the “From Billions to Trillions” report released by the World Bank in July 2015, the globalist outfit, a key player in Agenda 2030, conceded: “To meet the investment needs of the Sustainable Development Goals, the global community needs to move the discussion from ‘Billions’ in ODA [Official Development Assistance] to ‘Trillions’ in investments of all kinds: public and private, national and global, in both capital and capacity.”

But the money needed to implement Agenda 2030 and other UN schemes is only part of the cost. Other parts include the loss of our national independence and freedom that the rise of global governance and global socialism would surely entail. Revealingly, empowering dictators to help in global governance is openly touted by Agenda 2030. The document states, “We recommit to broadening and strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries [the regimes ruling those countries] — including African countries, least developed countries, land-locked developing countries, small-island developing States and middle-income countries — in international economic decision-making, norm-setting and global economic governance.”

Powerful Promoters

When Agenda 2030 was adopted at the 70th annual UN General Assembly confab in New York City on September 25, the UN plot to re-engineer civilization was ushered in with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from murderous communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN’s controversial goals on their subjects.

It all sounded so wonderful to some of the world’s most brutal dictators that they could hardly contain their glee. “This agenda promises a brave new world, a new world which we have to consciously construct, a new world that calls for the creation of a new global citizen,” gushed Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe, the genocidal mass-murderer enslaving Zimbabwe who also serves as chairman of the African Union. “I want to believe that we are up to this task that we have voluntarily and collectively committed ourselves to. Our success, and in particular the promise of a new world that awaits us, depends upon this commitment.” He also promised to vigorously impose the UN Agenda 2030 on the starving and impoverished victims his regime lords over with Agenda 2030-style policies. The communist Castro regime vowed to work with socialist Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and other tyrants to impose the UN goals on their victims, too — all with financing from Western taxpayers.

The brutal tyrants ruling Communist China, meanwhile, have also been enthusiastic cheerleaders for the UN goals — goals that the regime boasted it played a “crucial role” in developing. The Chinese autocracy, infamous for forced abortions, censorship, religious and political persecution, the “one-child policy,” terrible pollution, kangaroo courts, and of course, murdering more human beings than any other entity in all of human history, used its vast, global propaganda machine to celebrate Agenda 2030.

“China has made important contributions to the global efforts in reaching a fair, inclusive and sustainable post-2015 development agenda,” the regime’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Wang Min, was quoted as saying in a report by the Communist Chinese news and espionage service Xinhua. “China is also very active in putting forward Chinese proposals…. The agreement includes important proposals by China and many other developing countries in numerous aspects.”

Among other “commitments,” China promised to spend $2 billion in foreign countries to meet the UN goals in “education” and “health,” with its funding increasing to $12 billion by 2030. While only contributing a small piece of the pie, the fact that Beijing is so excited about the agenda is quite revealing. Echoing Chairman Mao’s rhetoric, EU and NATO globalist Javier Solana said, “With a sustained commitment from all countries, developed and developing alike, the world can ensure that it celebrates another great leap forward in 2030.” (Emphasis added.) The last “Great Leap Forward,” presided over by Chairman Mao Tse-tung between 1958 and 1963, resulted in the murder of an estimated 45 million Chinese who were worked, starved, or beaten to death.

The Obama administration, which apparently does not plan to present the UN scheme to the U.S. Senate for ratification as required by the U.S. Constitution, also offered a forceful defense of the UN agenda. Speaking to the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2015, after purporting to commit the United States to the global plot, Obama claimed the UN blueprint “is one of the smartest investments we can make in our own future.”

Even the world’s leading religious figure, Pope Francis, addressed UN member governments with a plea to support the UN goals. “The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development … is an important sign of hope,” he declared, before demanding a UN “climate” regime as well.

Beyond governments and religious figures, much of the private sector also enthusiastically backed the new goals. Among the mega-corporations backing the scheme are the world’s top three search engines: Google, Microsoft’s Bing, and Yahoo. It was not immediately clear whether those corporations’ support for the UN agenda would affect the supposed impartiality of search results, but critics of the UN plan expressed alarm nonetheless.

For now, at least, the world and the White House are all pretending that the SDGs are binding on Americans, too. However, the U.S. Senate was not consulted, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. And even if the Senate were to ratify it, the federal government cannot grant itself new anti-constitutional powers merely by approving a treaty. Therefore, the agreement has no force in the United States. But as UN Agenda 21 showed clearly, that does not mean that the Obama administration, and possibly future presidents, would not attempt to push it forward anyway. The American people, therefore, must demand through their elected representatives that the UN power grab be stopped.

The UN Agenda 2030 with its Sustainable Development Goals is claimed to “ensure peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” The actions are said to tackle poverty and hunger, bring better health and education, reduce inequalities, and save the oceans, forests and the climate. Who can argue against such benevolent goals? But the promised Utopia comes with a price – it sets shackles on our personal freedom.

Global Goals partners

The leading partners of the United Nations Global Goals project reveal the real technocratic agenda that lies behind the polished feel-good facade – it involves a plan to fully integrate mankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by a powerful AI. The current pandemic scare has been a perfect trigger to kickstart this nefarious agenda.

1. The first leading partner is Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, built with the fortune from Microsoft and run by the company’s former CEO Bill Gates. The Foundation is one of the key operatives in implementing the Agenda 2030 plan, together with foundations like Rockefeller FoundationRockefeller Brothers FundFord FoundationBloomberg PhilanthropiesUN Foundation, and Open Society Foundation. They all have their roots in population control/eugenics and represents the global elite that ultimately are running the show and shapes the agenda on a global scale. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has, together with World Economic Forum, had a prominent role in orchestrating the current COVID-19 hysteria as well as the push for a digital ID.

2. The second partner is Avanti Communications, a British world-leading provider of satellite technology to military and government projects. Their satellites are said to “provide secure, rapid and reliable connectivity for government digital inclusion programmes”. They deliver a world-spanning connectivity which may be used to finally realize the old dream of a World Brain where all human activity can be tracked and analysed in real time.

3. The third partner is 2030Vision, a technology partnership “that connects businesses, NGOs and governments with the technology and expertise they need to realize the Goals”. It is founded and chaired by the British semiconductor company ARM and consists of corporations like Microsoft and the German software company SAP together with a number of technology advocacy groups. 2030Vision, which recently merged with World Economic Forums Frontier 2030, is a partnership that connects cross-sector organisations and the advanced technology solutions needed to support the delivery of the Global Goals.

2030Vision Platform will provide a focal point for the mobilisation of a more concerted and cooperative effort to apply advanced technologies to achieve the UN Global Goals.

4. The fourth partner is the multinational tech-giant Google, provider of cloud computing, a leading search engine and web browser, Android cell phone operating system, Youtube, AI solutions, and a companion of everyday life for billions of people that already intimately track users and their behaviors.

5. The fifth partner is the American global payment and technology company Mastercard. A key player in developing the digital ID that will be needed to access basic service and payment in the New International Economic Order that will rise out of the ashes of the old world system. CEO Ajaypal Singh Banga is a member of Council on Foreign Relations as well as World Economic Forums International Business Council.

6. The sixth partner is American corporation Salesforce, a cloud-based software company headed by Marc Benioff (one of the board of directors of World Economic Forum). They are a global leader in customer relationship management through the use of cloud computing, social media, Internet of Things and AI.

7. The seventh partner is UNICEF (United Nations Childrens Fund). A UN agency that will ensure that no child will be left behind from being integrated in the digital panopticon.

The UN Global Goals and the leading partners are closely intertwined with World Economic Forums Fourth Industrial Revolution – a megalomaniac transhumanist plan that will “redefine what it means to be human” and where every aspect of life will be monitored and controlled from above for the “betterment of humanity”.

In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to “robotize” humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul. (Klaus Schwab)

The Great Reset

The manufactured COVID-19 crisis is seen by the World Economic Forum and its chairman Klaus Schwab as the perfect trigger to implement their grandiose technocratic plan. Big Tech will come to “rescue” the world. In June 2020, Schwab declared, backed up by prominent people like Prince Charles and UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres, Mastercard CEO Ajaypal Singh Banga, Microsoft President Brad Smith as well as the IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, the need of a Great Reset to restore order in a world steeped in panic, conflict and economic turmoil:

The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century. It has laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality. Now is the historical moment in time, not only to fight the real virus but to shape the system for the needs of the Post-Corona era. We have a choice to remain passive, which would lead to the amplification of many of the trends we see today. Polarisation, nationalism, rasism, and ultimately increasing social unrest and conflicts. But we have another choice, we can build a new social contract, particularly integrating the next generation, we can change our behavior to be in harmony with nature again, and we can make sure the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are best utilized to provide us with better lives. (Klaus Schwab)

Highlights from the World Economic Forum teleconference (full speeches here):

This techno–fascist recipe will then, in an utmost non-democratic fashion without any public debate or skeptic inquiry, soon be integrated into the agenda of G20 and the European Union – relabeled as the Great Green Deal and with planet-saving qualities. Everything is already in place and, after ostensibly being put on the back burner during the COVID19 crisis, the Climate Change agenda is now back with a vengeance.

We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind. We have to decarbonize the economy in the short window still remaining and bring our thinking and behaviour once more into harmony with nature, (Klaus Schwab)

Unsurprisingly, Klaus Schwab fails to mention his own and his cronies’ role in creating this global economic mess in the first place – as it was “foreseen” with stunning accuracy in World Economic Forum’s and Bill Gate’s Event 201 (October 2019) and in the Rockefeller Foundation report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development (2010).

Source: http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/global-goals-and-the-global-reset-for-global-technological-control/

Chronological History of Events Related to Agenda 2030

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau Says the Coronavirus Pandemic Provided an “Opportunity for a Reset.”

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau Says the Coronavirus Pandemic Provided an “Opportunity for a Reset.”

“The Great Reset” began trending on Twitter after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the coronavirus pandemic had provided an “opportunity for a reset.” Trudeau made the comments during a United Nations video conference back in September, but they are only just receiving attention. “Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 agenda for sustainable development ...
Read More
Davos World Economic Forum Unveil Plans for THE GREAT RESET

Davos World Economic Forum Unveil Plans for THE GREAT RESET

For those wondering what will come after the Covid19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity. On June 3 via their website, ...
Read More
Portland Passes “Green New Deal” Carbon Tax, First Of Its Kind in the Nation

Portland Passes “Green New Deal” Carbon Tax, First Of Its Kind in the Nation

Referring to it with happy little buzzwords such as “climate justice,” the city of Portland will soon be implementing the first (and hopefully only) “green new deal” carbon tax in the nation, which city “leaders” estimate will suck $60 million out of the economy. The money will allegedly be going toward “creating” “green energy” jobs. They say the tax will only affect The Evil Corporations™ specifically ...
Read More
Paper: Empty Gestures on Climate Change

Paper: Empty Gestures on Climate Change

In a paper he recently published, Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, deconstructs the myth that lugging around reusable grocery bags and using paper straws instead of plastic have any meaningful impact on our planet’s climate. As it turns out, all of the messaging about how to individually fight “global warming” by reducing one’s personal “carbon footprint” is a gaggle of lies and propaganda – and this from ...
Read More
UN Summit in Nairobi Seeks “New World Order” to “Transform the Way We Live”

UN Summit in Nairobi Seeks “New World Order” to “Transform the Way We Live”

Under the guise of saving the planet from supposedly dangerous humans, plastics, and free markets, governments and dictators attending the Fourth United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, adopted declarations to hijack control of the global economy and “transform the way we live.” Among the key goals of the UN's “bold blueprint for change,” as the agreement was described, is a “new world order” that makes ...
Read More