Headerimage

moon-landing-hoax

Brother Bart’s  Conspiracy Corner

Article One

There is an account in the scriptures where a zealous priest, thinking he was doing the work of God, persecuted true believers who he sincerely considered to be a heretical threat to divine truth.  (You see, you can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong.)  Then he had a conversion of thought, which led to a conversion of actions.  The leader of the group he was oppressing confronted him, and showed him that his beliefs were the exact opposite of the truth.  Willingly,though humbly, the priest completely changed his mind, heart and actions, one hundred percent, in regard to his entire life’s work and perception.  Why?  Because he was a seeker of the truth over tradition.  The battle for the truth is inevitably a battle between reality and tradition (or traditional, that is conditional, thinking).

My life story in regard to the moon landings is exactly the same type of conversion.  My father was in the Air Force, so I grew up around the latest aviation and technology.  I loved it!  Though I was only four years of age at the time of the alleged moon landings in 1969, quietly asleep in bed, my father, as a celebrated military officer, was given a VIP package of commemorative photographs of the event, which he gave to me as a cherished present.  From the age of about four to fourteen, these pictures covered an entire “sacred” wall in my bedroom.  It was a shrine (like a religion) to the intellectual prowess of humankind (which indeed it did turn out to be!)  I saw these images, which were a representation of the alleged “glorious” American moon landings, every day, three hundred sixty-five days a year, for ten years.  This means I saw theses images propagating the desired belief in their authenticity, three thousand six hundred fifty times before I even considered the possibility that they were misrepresentations of reality . . . That’s a lot of brainwashing!

Fortunately, at the age of fourteen, I saw an enlightened television program featuring an interview with William Kaysing, a NASA contractor during the Apollo “moon” missions.  He asserted quite confidently, from first hand eyewitness accounts, that the flights were staged to increase the prestige of the United States during the height of the Cold War and the pit of domestic discontentment.  After watching the program, I went to my enshrined bedroom wall of infamy and looked, for the first time, with new eyes, at theses surprisingly telling pictures.  Sure enough, just like the man said, stunning evidence of photographic anomalies were hidden in plain sight!  (They say this is the very best place to hind something investigators are looking for!)  I just had to have “eyes that see”, after all a famous prophet notably said that most people “have eyes that do not see, and ears that do nothear”.

I equate this with a salt shaker always being placed in the left kitchen cabinet, on the third shelf, on the left side, for ten years.  If your spouse inadvertently moves it to the left kitchen cabinet, on the third shelf, on the right side . . . you don’t see it, even though it is right there in front of your eyes! . . . There you stand, with the cabinet door wide open, the salt shaker right in front of you only inches away (though on the right side of the shelf rather than the left, where you were trained not to look), and you do not see it! . . . There I was, looking at the same pictures of the alleged moon landings over and over again for a full decade, yet not seeing quite obvious inconsistencies and abnormalities that would quickly give away the deceptive criminality of the event, if only I would look beyond my programmed response!

Like everybody else, I was so conditioned by the media to see what they wanted me to see, that it took real effort on my part to discernsuccinctly fiction from fact, plus I had no mentor to point out my error.  (Read my article “Introduction” at the top of “Brother Bart’s  Conspiracy Corner” for further explanation on media manipulation.)  As Stanly Kubrick’s last film was entitled “Eyes Wide Shut!”, this was my and the populous’ simplistic error.  For example, at the top of this article you see what is the most published and well known photograph of the alleged moon landings, yet there are at least five telltale signs in this picture that give away the deception that are completely and repeatedly overlooked due to people seeing what they are conditioned to see.  First of all, what most people don’t notice is the ease at which the “astronaut” has his left arm bent at ninety degrees.  If he were really in outer space on a heavenly body without an atmosphere, then the spacesuit would have to be dramatically pressurized with compressed air, which it is obviously not due to the numerous wrinkles in the fabric and the ease at which they hold their arm bent.  (The spacesuit should be puffed up like the Michelin Man.)  Secondly, if you look to the right of the actor, about waist high, just above the faint cross (+), you can see where the background changes from a faint grey color to a darker grey shading.  (In earlier pictures, which NASA later corrected, the color actually changed even more dramatically from grey to blue.)  This is where the real landscape and the false landscape (a large photograph on a the wall) converge!

In order to better get away with the deception of this fake backdrop, they have done two things. First, they rolled the real landscape slightly uphill before the wall began, so as to not make the distinction between the two as obvious. Secondly, and even more clever, the movie set they built was actually circular.  In order to discern the line between the fake backdrop and the real foreground you must look at a slightly upward angle to the right from the “astronaut’s” waist and perceive that they are standing near the wall of a set that is circular. Thirdly, in the reflective visor of the actor (which conveniently conceals who is really in the spacesuit), you can notice that there are actually three degrees of shadow.  The darkest is of the person’s full body shadow and the shadow of the “lunar lander”.  The second is the faintest area of no shadow in the top left of the visor, just below the black horizon.  The third, medium shadow, actually encompasses the greatest area, as it is the shadow of the fake backdrop wall itself, casting a noticeably large angular shadow in the foreground in front of the person in the spacesuit, as the top of it was cut with less artistic esthetics because it was beyond the camera’s view and contains three noticeable ninety degree turns.  It is not discernable in the limited area of the photograph itself, yet is perceivable by “those that see” in the visor’s expanded reflection.

Fourthly, as even the designer of the camera which took the picture admitted in his interview on “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon” (the link of which is at end of this article), the “astronaut’s” shadow indicates that “the sun” (or rather the light to represent it) is behind them, yet they are nevertheless also lit with supplemental electrical light from the front, none of which NASA admits they took on their mission, as they claimed that sunlight was more than ample.

Finally, just above and past the one o’clock position of the face visor, you see a hint of a small straight white line going up, yet it is inadvertently cut off.  Because the person is really standing on earth (in a film studio) and not on the moon’s much lighter gravity, they were being supported by cables from the ceiling so they would not topple over from the heavy backpack which was designed for one sixth the gravity.  Though the cables were undoubtedly painted black in an effort to conceal them in the black “outer space” background, they must have shown up anyway.  In their rush to conceal the cables, NASA’s “photo lab” just laid a piece of black masking on top of them, just above the height of the backpack.  Unfortunately for them, this cut off the radio transmitting antenna which should be sticking out of this part of the backpack as it does in all other photographs, yet the antenna is nowhere to be found!  How could they then communicate with people on earth a quarter million miles away without an antenna?  Oops!

In a way, like naïve Adam and Eve, you can’t blame people for initially being deceived, after all, which is a more pleasant realm to live in, one in which your country or world continually lies about science, integrity and spending, or one in which your country or world is scientifically unsurpassed, honorable and financially honest?  Naturally, people almost always seem to see the latter because this is the kind of realm they would rather live in.

Personally, if I had cancer, I would want to know about it rather than pretending that I didn’t have it.  (Obviously though, some people prefer being lied to with pleasantries.)  While pretending that I wasn’t diseased would temporarily pacify my emotions, it would also unabatedly spread the disease, potentially to fatality, because I ignored it.  On the other hand, while finding out that you have cancer is quite a downer, you can at least plan according to reality instead of fantasy, and perhaps actually accomplish more with this information, albeit seemingly depressing information, knowing that you have limited opportunity to change your life for the better.  Fortunately again, at the age of twenty-four, I had become a filmmaker, and happened to be editing a film one day for the very producer of the show I had seen as a fourteen year old ten years earlier about the moon landing fraud!  “Do you remember that guy you had on your show who said the moon landings were fake?” I asked, “What was his name.  I’d like to talk with him.”  The rest is history.

When I ask leading “intellectuals” why they will not even briefly consider just the possibility of a moon landing fraud, they say “No one would do such a thing.”  (That is to say, no one would be that audaciously wicked.)  My argument is that in a world full of genocide, murder, rape, theft, mutilations and molestations, is merely lying about a scientific accomplishment so farfetched?  After all, haven’t Nobel laureates in the past been forced to give back their medals for plagiarism and deceit?  Yes, they have!

I went from being the biggest fan of the moon missions to eventually becoming the most outspoken critic because I was open minded and willing to be wrong when the evidence presented itself to the contrary of my first opinion, even if that evidence was unpredicted, unprecedented and very depressing.  I was not totally brainwashed by false criminalistic “patriotism” to the point that I was incapable of deprogramming myself from relentless, from the cradle, deceptive government propaganda.  These type of people who vehemently appose the admission of a cover-up regarding the Apollo “moon” landings, with foaming rabid mouths and their polluted brains infected by party-line corporate college degrees, have openly admitted, time and time again, that if firsthand eyewitness Neil Armstrong himself had went on national television and confessed to the cover-up, they would still believe that the moon landings were real! Who then is mentally deficient as they claim the conspiracy theorists are?  These people will not even consider for one second, even the possibility, that the alleged manned moon missions were a cold war deception to inflate the appearance of American military superiority, as well as pacify rampant disgruntled domestic revolt, so how can the opinions of such close-minded people be trusted in the first place?  The supposed manned moon missions are a religion to them and a false one at that.  (See  2nd Thessalonians  2: 9-12)

Hitler, the master of deception, said that it was actually easier to get away with a gigantic lie than a small one, because small lies are so common and anticipated, and that no one would expect the audacity of a grand deception.  This is precisely the psychological tactic that was used in precipitating and maintaining the monumental, yet simple lie of the moon landings.  Never before in the entire history of the world did such a historical event have absolutely no independent press coverage.  Why do investigators overlook this most telling piece of evidence?  Only three government employee eyewitnesses to the “greatest event in history”?  Whatever completely government controlled photographs and images were given to the press were blindly assumed to be authenticated by the “credible” Nixon administration.  It is like giving a whining child cake for dinner to appease them and then expecting them to argue with you demanding broccoli instead!

The Vietnam War during the alleged moon missions was destroying the country from within by its divisiveness and civil protests.  Nixon repeatedly said so himself, thinking that this mounting public discontent might actually lead to real anarchy, rebellion and the disintegration of the government, not to mention his precious egotistical cushy job!  A unifying pep rally of a successful moon landing was just what the American patient needed!  Do you really think that Nixon was going to risk killing three national “heroes” on live worldwide television during his presidency when simply failing to rescue kidnapped hostages would ruin you for life as it did president Carter?  How could he absolutely guarantee a successful moon mission? To stage it! Not to mention that it was technologically impossible at the time to begin with.  In fact, according to NASA contractor William Kaysing, who worked for six years on the Apollo missions, a classified interdepartmental memo, which he personally read and proofed, estimated the likelihood of a successful manned mission on the first attempt at a mere one in ten thousand chance.

Some assume that if the Soviet Union or Chinese intelligence agencies found out that the American moon landings were fraudulent they would “spill the beans” to the rest of the world.  This is simply not true, and again, thinking only one step farther than programmed to do reveals the truth.  If wars are created for the profiteering of the “Military Industrial Complex”, as many forward thinking people including president Eisenhower now realize, then “adversaries” of America are merelyimaginary, created for profitable ends by the billionaires pulling the strings behind the scenes, who have been working toward a one world government for the last half a century anyway.  As such, the Soviet Union and China are, in fact, in-league with the United States government.  This being the case, these overseas entities would not bring the truth of such an American scandal into the light to injure their co-conspirator brother.  Any “bad blood” the United States appears to have with foreign powers is merely staged for the very purpose of keeping their complicity a secret.

Even if these two “super-powers” were actual enemies of America, they still would not expose the truth about the moon missions.  For example, if I had a picture of the president with a prostitute, would it be more profitable for me to give it away free to the press corps, or to blackmail him year after year with ever increasing tolls until the day he died?  If such countries really were enemies of America and had proof of the moon landing fraud, it would serve their interests much more to keep such knowledge to themselves and blackmail America, administration after administration, to get the behind-the-scenes negotiations to favor them, whether it regarded trade, arms, debt, or anything else they so desired.

There were, in fact, no “independent” tracking stations for the Apollo missions.  The only entities that had such capability were the United State’s own government agencies (who were complicit in the cover-up) and the aforementioned countries, who profited from keeping the secret.  Additionally, NASA launched the “Tetra-A” satellite shortly before the Apollo missions to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that their ground crews could rehearse the “moon landings” during their many simulations.  Conveniently, it was purported that the Tetra-A satellite accidently burned up in the earth’s atmosphere just before the first mission, that way the government satellite could secretly still be in service, performing the same simulation function during the “real” flights.  Furthermore, retired ground crew members recently acknowledged that they could tell no difference whatsoever between a “real” and a “simulated” moon mission.

From Wikipedia regarding The Apollo Fraud:

“Some people insist that the Apollo moon landings were a cold war deception of the Nixon administration.  However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did occur.  Anyone on earth with an appropriate laser and telescope system can apparently bounce laser beams off three retro-reflector arrays reported to be left on the moon by Apollo 11, 14 and 15, suggesting deployment of the lunar laser ranging equipment at asserted Apollo moon landing sites, implying equipment constructed on earth was transported to the surface of the moon.  In addition, in August 2009, NASA’s lunar reconnaissance orbiter claimed to send back high resolution photos of the estimated Apollo landing sites.  These government issued pictures show not only what is reported to be the faint shadows of the descent stages of the lunar landers allegedly left behind, but also apparent tracks of the astronauts’ walking paths nearby in the lunar dust.”

At first (and only) glance, these appear to be relevant arguments, yet each one is, surprisingly, most easily and unconditionally refuted with only a modicum amount of further investigation beyond conditioned interpretation.  First of all, it has recently come to light through “whistling blowing” intelligence employees that “Wikipedia” is a mainstream, establishment supported, parasitical organism used rampantly for propaganda purposes by multiple government agencies such as the NSA, as they can anonymously post intelligent sounding pro-government thesis to the masses, often deliberately contradicting and smugly belittling more truthful “conspiracy theories” of very real crimes of the authorities in power, whose express purpose of these writings is to cover-up and deflect attention away from their own illegal and unholy behavior.  (See the Sleuth Journal article on this topic at the end of this writing.)  When they use words like “empirical evidence is readily available to show that the manned moon landings did occur” . . . It not only shows their arrogance (which, in and of itself, demonstrates their blindness to the facts), it also exemplifies their desperation to make an argument that is so much losing ground that they have to resort to the administration in power tactic that if you don’t agree with them you are somehow deficient in intelligence.

It was proven in 1962 that a laser can be bounced and calibrated off of the moon without a man made reflector thereon simply due to the reflectivity of the lunar surface.  Secondly, Russia put a manmade mirror on the moon’s surface during the time of the Apollo missions for this same claimed purpose, using instead an un-manned probe that would not have to suffer the biological ravages of lethal space radiation.  (See the March 1959 issue, Volume 200, Number 3, of the magazine “Scientific American”, article entitled “Radiation Belts Around the Earth”, to see how deadly and impenetrable space radiation is beyond the safety of low earth orbit where the space station currently resides.)  Thirdly, seeing how all of these lasers have their data computer controlled, it would only take one computer hacker, if they so desired, to manipulate the data shown on a scientist’s viewing monitor, which they wrongly assume is the gospel truth.  (This was precisely the case at “mission control” during the “moon” missions, where dozens of computer “operators”, who actually just read the preprogrammed data screens like news anchors who do not write their own words, and openly admitted, after the fact, that they could tell no difference whatsoever between a flight simulation and a “real” flight.)

To say that additional photographs from the criminal NASA are evidence that “prove” the moon landings were real is laughable.  They already faked high resolution, full body pictures of an “astronaut” standing right on the “moon’s surface” more than forty years ago, so what is it to fake additional pictures, with four decades better technology, of such simple things such as tiny shadows or scratches on lunar satellite photographs that are supposed to be from human foot tracks or Apollo lunar landers?  These diehard believers are just seeing what they want to see, like a naïve spouse of a cheating partner, accepting the fox’s evidence that they didn’t steal a chicken.

Additional arguments against the fraud are reported to be the hundreds of thousands of people throughout industry who contributed to the missions, who allegedly would have had to have kept the secret.  Again, seemingly a good argument, yet it is not with only a little extra thought and investigation.  Do you really think the CIA was going to tell the person making the rocket’s door handle, or the glove or the boot of the spacesuit, that they were actually faking the moon landings?  Do we really think the CIA is that stupid to tell everyone?  Just like a pyramid of power in any business, what the employee, the manager and the regional manager knows about the business’ actual agenda, is completely different than what the CEO at the top knows.  Remember, there were only three people (“trusted” government employees) who were actually there at the time.  As you will see in my film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” (the link follows this article), they were indeed on the rocket, they did launch into earth orbit (to attain zero gravity photography), they did splash down in the ocean (to add to the realism), yet the rest, beyond earth orbit, was completely contrived, like a masterful illusionist, by satellite data manipulation, complete media control, and professional movie sets.  After all, what is easier to do, actually build a rocket and travel to another planet, or simply make a movie about it?

Some of the best evidence supporting the fraud is the fact that in 1994, when the space shuttle flew to its highest altitude ever, three hundred sixty-five miles, one third higher than they normally flew, they were asked to descend to a lower altitude by mission control due to lethal space radiation they encountered by approaching too close to the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which don’t even begin until one thousand miles altitude.  That is to say, they were six hundred thirty-five miles away from radiation that was so intense that they reported they could see the radiation with their eyes closed as sparks of light hitting the retinas of their shaded eyes.  When this happened, CNN inadvertently reported this fact by saying, “The radiation belt surrounding earth is more dangerous than previously believed.”  Apparently not a single journalist on the entire planet figured out, except for myself, that this statement totally contradicts the authenticity of the moon landings.  Here’s why:

The only time in world history human beings are said to have traveled through the twenty-five thousand mile thick radiation field called the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which unbeknownst to most surrounds earth starting at an altitude of one thousand miles, is during the alleged moon missions.  Why is it then that astronauts some six hundred thirty-five miles away from this radiation, twenty-five years later, know more about it than the Apollo astronauts who claimed they were in the middle of it twelve times to the moon and back?  Remember, the radiation is now “more dangerous than previously believed”.  What is “previously believed” if not based on the reports from the “experts” of the radiation, the Apollo crews, who were allegedly the only ones in all of history to have traveled through the radiation twelve times to the moon and back, with no ill effects and no reports of any kind of the visible sparks of radiation being seen as later reported.  Again, how can people six hundred thirty-five miles away from something know more about it than people who were allegedly in the middle of it?  Of course, this is simplynot possible.  What does this mean?  It means that the people who claimed to have previously been inside the radiation field lied about being there.  Of course too, if they never went through the Van Allen Radiation Belt as this contradictory report reveals, then they certainly could not have gone to the moon either, which the transversing of this radiation would require!  Why does no one connect the dots with this very revealing information except me?  Because the dots are horrific and would break the spirit of the entire American nation if they knew the truth! 

In fact, when I discovered absolute proof (actual, on camera evidence) that the Apollo astronauts never left earth orbit (contained in a previously unseen unedited NASA reel which was never broadcast) and showed this videotape to a news director at NBC, he turned pale white, practically fainted and exclaimed, “Oh, my God!  It looks like we didn’t go to the moon!”  “I know”, I said, “What do we do?”  The man who held the betterment of America in his hand thought for a long while, slowly sunk into his chair, and then eventually “chickened out”.  He said, “I can not air this with a clear conscious.  It will cause a civil war.  I will not be responsible for that.”  While I disagree that the public knowing the truth about the moon missions would cause a civil war, they would probably demand governmental reform and start investigating other matters of corruption and deception.  Naturally, criminals would rather not get caught and preserve their way of life that reform would inevitably dismantle.

Oddly enough, when Bush Jr. was president, he went on national television and proclaimed that “The United States will return to the moon as a logical first step to Mars and beyond”.  Did no one besides me notice that if they really already went to the moon six times, why would they need to do a “first” step over again for the seventh time?  He was even so bold as to go on to say that “First we will need to learn how to protect the astronauts from lethal space radiation.”  Am I the only one curious enough to ask, “Why not do it the same way that worked so good the first time they went to the moon?”

In August of 2009 it was reported, albeit as a news oddity (and it certainly was) that a “moon rock” given to the president of the Netherlands by Neil Armstrong himself in 1969 was opened thirty years later from its hermetically sealed container by a curious museum curator after he had watched “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”.  After examination, the rock was verified to actually be a deceptively authentic looking piece of petrified wood instead!  Yet again, not a single journalist, except for myself, asked the question, “If the moon rocks are fraudulent, what about the moon missions?

If more people would only view with an open, deprogrammed mind, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”, which contains this newly discovered video evidence of the moon landing fraud, they would see with their own eyes recently uncovered unedited behind-the-scenes outtakes of false photography of the recently deceased Neil Armstrong during his historic flight.  The scene contained therein has never been broadcast to the public.  In it, Armstrong is using a one foot diameter model of the earth, from low earth orbit, to create the illusion for the television viewers, that he and his crew are half way to the moon, when they are, in fact, still in earth orbit.  This is, in my opinion, absolute proof that, though they were on the rocket in low earth orbit, the crew never went any further due to lethal space radiation.

This footage is even dated by NASA’s own computer clock as having taken place two days into Armstrong’s flight, when he is supposed to be half way to the moon, yet he and his crew are clearly shown (in these newly discovered unedited outtakes of the broadcast) to be still in earth orbit and falsifying the television photography to deceive the viewing public of their real location.  The CIA is even heard on a private, third audio channel, prompting Armstrong to respond to Mission Control’s questions only after four seconds have elapsed, in order to create the false impression of an increased radio delay, so as to appear much farther from the earth than he and his crew actually were.  Jump ahead to time  32:02  if you do not wish to view the entire forty seven minute documentary and only see the newly discovered unedited out-takes of Neil Armstrong falsifying mission photography during the his historic and now infamous mission.

The extremely simple fact is this: After Columbus traveled to the new world, everyone traveled to the new world.  After Lewis and Clark traveled to the American west, everyone traveled to the American west.  After the Wright brothers accomplished powered flight, everyone else did immediately thereafter.  Soon it will be five decades since America allegedly had men leisurely playing golf on the moon in complete safety with 1960′s technology.  (More computing power is found today in a ten dollar watch than was in the entire Apollo program!) For some reason, no one, from any nation on earth, has been able to go to the moon and survive, not even once, with five decades more advanced technology . . . Why? . . . There is only one possible answer . . . It is soooooooo simple . . . Because it can not be done . . . even today!

If all the scientists from all the nations on earth can not go to the moontoday with all the newer technology that the 21st century has to offer, it simply means, and it can not mean anything else, that America did not go to the moon in the 1960′s.  It is sooooo obvious to anyone with an open mind who does not have a religious attachment to the event.

Just as Hitler’s children, if he had any, would never see dear old papa as anything but a benevolent patriarch, these mired intellectuals will never admit that their enamored “scientific” community and “glorious” government can be just as corrupt as pedophile priest.

References: 

1)  A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”  

2)  “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon” 

3)  Fake Moon Rock Found in Museum

4)  NSA  Uses Wikipedia and Other Social Media for Propaganda

Firearms Crimes Plummet Even As Firearms Sales Rise

gun-crimes-plummet-even-as-gun-sales-rise_5203f959cd014

72 Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston!

Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston!

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

 

On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years.

Lest we forget…

 

You Can Trust Government

20130611_NateBeeler

The Hidden Hand That Shaped History

 

The

Hidden Hand

That

Shaped History

 

THHMTD

Secret Symbols of the Rosicrucians

Secret Symbols

of 

the

Rosicrucians

 

SSOTR

VNS and CAJI/IS Exclusive – AMERICA’S QUICK FIX: A NATIONAL MORATORIUM

AMERICA’S QUICK FIX: A NATIONAL MORATORIUM

Veritas News Service

and

CAJI/IS Exlusive

08May13

Author Chuck Frank

PCDH

The U.S. Constitution, which is all but four handwritten pages long, is dwarfed by an out-of-control U.S. bureaucratic process which speaks for itself with reams of legalism and regulations while the fat cats of the agencies plan for additional policies and their own retirements. Yet all that is needed is one paragraph to take care of and eliminate the extortion of an over-regulated dinosaur which has produced numerous lost rights, the invasion of privacy, world record incarceration, and big government. Here is my proposal to stop this bullet train before it is too late. Except for a few instances where there is a clear and present danger to human life and runaway abuse, let it be known that WE THE PEOPLE now declare by decree a moratorium on all laws being made either by Congress, Presidential executive orders, state legislators, governors, county supervisors, or city councils.

We include in this declaration a proposal that all government agencies be cut at least by half or more. In addition, we now call upon the people, with the help of grand juries, pastors, farmers, private investigators, small businessmen and women, along with those of the newly elected impartial watchdog committees, to roll back any previous laws and over taxation that have recklessly infringed upon the inalienable God-given rights of the people. Thus the people’s protections of true representation and liberty, will once again flourish in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Big government’s treasonous trashing of the U.S. Constitution and the economy will be dealt with while two-thirds of the outsourcing of our jobs to numerous countries abroad will be stopped. Also included in this decree is the following: Lobbying by bloated special interest organizations which are worth millions is banned while any person that runs for any office in America or those persons who are appointed to government agencies or other offices will have extensive background checks. Also, persons who are part of government agencies in no way can be an ex CEO of a megacorporation. This includes any person who performed their duties in any executive capacity such as a vice-president while being part of a for-profit or a nonprofit corporation such as a Fortune 500 company. Furthermore, any presently-employed government czar who had previously served with corporations of this kind will be relieved of their duties and may not serve in any part of government.

Does this sound like communism? Absolutely not. This proposal is fully anti-communist as anyone can see. This is necessary in that the corporate lords of the nation and those of the worldly shadow elite are taking us down a road of tyranny and monopolistic destruction to where we as a people are very quickly losing our freedom and individual rights to a carefully-orchestrated international anti-sovereignty meltdown. It is brought to you by those rogue individuals of the republic, the U.N., and the New World Order. We as a people have been taken captive by an evil NWO plan of world domination that is meant to enslave the entire planet for the benefit of a few. It is now time to act for it is one minute to midnight. The sinister grand plan is spelled out here by David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination (i.e., an ethical form democracy, “freedom to choose” based upon true christian guidelines; the author’s definition) practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.  "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

“Nor did these lawyers and bankers walk about suffused with guilt. They had the moral equivalent of teflon on their soul. Church on Sunday, foreclose on Monday.” —Norman Mailer, New York Review of Books, 27 March 2002

VNS and CAJI/IS Exclusive – THE GREEN CZARS EXPOSED: A WAVE OF DESTRUCTION & THE DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AMERICA

THE GREEN CZARS EXPOSED:

A WAVE OF DESTRUCTION &

THE DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AMERICA

Author: Chuck Frank

TGZ

Globalists and environmentalists have a lot of common ground. They will use any crisis or even create one to further their objectives such as climate change. Then again, if 1000 endangered species isn’t enough ammunition to dismantle dams and the industrial complex of America, use the 2008 housing meltdown which was the result of the deregulation of the banks when Bill Clinton signed it into law before he left office. By doing so, he destroyed the country’s economic protections which had been in place since the Great Depression. Allen Greenspan and the rest of the banking club rode this wave of destruction. These “experts” placed the entire nation at risk as they were entwined with a “greed driven” deregulation policy which then brought on the great foreclosure disaster to millions. With such a failed track record, why is the Federal Reserve still in business and where is our own government’s credibility? It is zero!

Looking further into the wonderful world of finance, let’s not forget when the elite bankers came to town with their sinister scheme which would rake in billions selling an overblown environmental crisis while making loans to the many unsuspecting nations who were already broke. With interest, the IMF and the World Bank was there to “help” but when these nations could no longer pay their loans, then came the land grab. Countries like Germany are already waking up to the cold reality of a green energy sink hole that has an appetite for endless sustainability while costing the people extra Euros that are in the billions.  Here is Daniel Wentzel’s take on it: “Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.” –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012.

The shock waves and cost burdens for consumers and industry have reached a “barely tolerable level that threatens the deindustrialization of Germany,” outraged business organizations said. All of Germany has been arguing about who is to blame for the “electricity price hammer” while Chancellor Angela Merkel had “promised” that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Now, however, German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion – instead of 14 billion Euros. Daniel Wentzel asks the question, “How could Merkel be so wrong?” This isn’t “saving” the planet or anybody for that matter, but what it does is create havoc and poverty. What if you were a third world country implementing green energy? Soup lines anybody? How many missions is America going to need?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/an-ill-wind-blows-from-wind-turbiines/

Since 2001, the U.S. has lost 42,400 factories:

http://prospect.org/article/plight-american-manufacturing

America, like Germany, is crashing into a true de-industrialization mode. So what does the green agenda really have to offer? The best example is to look at the wages of the Western Rivers Conservancy out of Portland, Oregon, where employees currently earn about $72,186.00 per year (their stats) while our minimum wage may only bring in $16,000.00. This is the environmentalist grand plan for saving the planet or themselves? Everybody please say “thank you” to Western Rivers while the rest of America does with much less. Don’t forget too that the Klamath Dam at the headwaters of the Klamath River is on their chopping block list. One must understand how Western Rivers works it. In their own words, here are a few of their outrageous “grand plan” goals that are mentioned in their annual report:

“Increase the funds to 10 million dollars to “SEIZE” LAND PURCHASES.

“Focus on high quality rivers, and CONTROL WHOLE RIVERS FROM THE SOURCE TO THE MOUTH.”

www.westernrivers.org

Take note above. It is “Rivers” ending with a big “S.” Is the Feather River next? How about the Sacramento River or the American River? With these organizations there is no end to their appetite. The rivers could be full to the brim with fish pre-American Revolution times yet they would still not be happy. It’s called more donations to their fabricated cause. The endgame: sabotage American family farmers through burdensome federal policies and limit their amount of water.

Remember the Delta queens and the smelt fish debacle? Deprivatize family farms while Big Agri takes over. Is there any end to the loss and the destruction of family farms in America? Historically, there is also something to be learned here from Stalin’s 1933 takeover of Ukraine’s family farms. Fact check: 7 million men, women, and children died from starvation. Are we still America or are we some other country that is being ruled by the green czars of a lost republic? Question: When are the American people going to act and stand up for their inalienable rights, or perhaps they will just be content with their food stamps and cellphones? Something tells me they won’t be. “One does not live on bread alone.”

The Human-Hating Roots of the Green Movement

Behind the environmentalist facade lies a totalitarian agenda that is already being enacted.

By Arnold Ahlert April 24, 2013

Monday was the 43rd celebration of Earth Day, an event hailed as an effort to promote responsible stewardship of the environment. Fittingly, it is also the birthdate of Communist Party creator Vladimir Lenin, a reality that the radical environmentalists responsible for the creation of Earth Day dismiss as a mere coincidence. Yet there is little question that under the guise of "saving the planet," the earth-firster crowd would be more than willing to impose the same kind of totalitarian control over the masses envisioned by Lenin.

Like communism, the radical environmentalism that forms the heart of Earth Day celebrations is all about collectivism. In a 2007 column for the Cato Institute, former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus called environmentalism one of the main dangers to freedom in the 21st century. "Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection," writes Klaus. "Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values."

The Earth Day concept was developed by then-Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Congress's foremost environmentalist. Nelson also helped to develop college "sit-ins," where professors surreptitiously abandoned their curriculums to lecture students on the evils of imperialist America and the virtues of communism, a misunderstood system of governance that merely need better implementation to succeed.

Nelson's efforts were facilitated by Denis Hayes. Hayes was a student at Stanford University, where he was elected student body president and became a high-profile anti-Vietnam War activist who once helped lead a student siege of a campus weapons-research laboratory.

Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich was the third man behind the Earth Day cult. Ehrlich's claim to fame was The Population Bomb, a book that predicted societal disintegration, and hundreds of millions of deaths from famine — by the 1980s — due to the "cancer" of human population growth. In 1969 Nelson and Ehrlich decided that a nation enthralled by the ethos of Woodstock was ready for a nationwide teach-in on environmentalism. Hayes was brought in to coordinate and implement the operation. The trio decided that the first Earth Day would be held on April 22, 1970 — the centennial celebration of Lenin's birthday.

The philosophical alignment between Lenin, who issued a decree known as "On Land," declaring all natural resources the exclusive property of the state, and environmentalists, who believe that private enterprise and private property are impediments to saving the planet, are unmistakeable. To a large extent, those radical impulses have been realized in the United States. The federal government owns nearly 30 percent of all the land in the country, including five states where it owns more than half. Much of it remains federalized via the Endangered Species Act, which allows government to cordon off property from development if an endangered species is living on it. Furthermore, until the Supreme Court stopped the EPA last year, that agency was using the Clean Water Act to mandate what private property owners could or could not do with their own property, while preventing those owners from seeking recourse in the courts. "In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court's decision.

The EPA was created by Congress eight months after the first Earth Day celebration.

Another major player promoting Earth Day is the Earth Day Network (EDN), founded in 1994 by the organizers of the first Earth Day celebration. The most insidious plank of EDN's "core programs" is its "Greening Schools and Promoting Environmental Education" agenda. EDN provides educators with a variety of games, interactive quizzes and other aids, that enable them to teach kids from kindergarten through twelfth grade how to be the best "green" citizens they can be. Much of EDN's emphasis is centered on making kids feel guilty about the size of their "ecological footprint" in comparison to children from other nations. "If everyone lived like you," EDN tells children, "we would need [X-number of] planets" to sustain the lives of all the earth's people." EDN's message is subtle but clear: capitalism is unjust and, as a result, America is using more than its "fair share" of the world's resources.

Hayes, who sits on EDN's Board of Directors, makes this plain. "Under communism prices were not allowed to reflect economic reality," Hayes contends. "Under capitalism, prices don't reflect ecological reality. In the long run, the capitalist flaw — if uncorrected — may prove to be the more catastrophic. …" Moreover, Hayes makes no bones about the fact that he considers human population growth to be the "most worrisome" environmental problem. "If everyone currently in the world aspires to consume at the same level as, say, the average Swede does, the human population already exceeds the planet's carrying capacity," writes Hayes.

Ira Einhorn who hosted the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970, made his own personal contribution to population reduction. Seven years after the event, police raided his apartment and found the remains of his girlfriend, after one of his neighbors complained about a reddish- brown, foul-smelling liquid leaking into the ceiling directly below Einhorn's closet. After 23 years on the run, he was extradited from France, convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence.

Another major player in the radical environmentalist movement is a Canadian named Maurice Strong. After starting his career in the oil business in the 1950s, Strong cultivated contacts in the Canadian government. By 1966, he became head of the Canadian International Development Agency. His success there impressed UN Secretary General U Thant, who asked him to organize the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, better known as the first "Earth Summit." The "Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment" created there offered a number of socialist/Marxist ideas, including the transfer of wealth from developed countries to under-developed ones, the need for population control, and "extensive cooperation among nations and action by international organizations in the common interest," aka world governance. It offered 26 principles to advance this agenda.

In 1992, another Earth Summit was held in Rio, out of which the "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development" emerged. Another 27 principles, similar to the pie-in-the-sky, wealth transferring eco- socialist/Marxist agenda that emerged 20 years earlier, was added to the mix. That summit was also led by Strong.

One world government is the primary impetus behind a UN project known as Agenda 21 — originated by Maurice Strong. In 1993, the UN explained its mission. "Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced." 178 countries have currently adopted Agenda 21. Strong himself, who currently resides in the People's Republic of China, expressed his personal view on what must happen for Agenda 21 to succeed. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" he asked.

There is little question that such people will try. That is why the term "climate change," which replaced "global warming" when a decade of steady temperatures threatened the credibility of the environmentalists' "irrefutable data" — along with the movement itself — has itself been replaced by the newest catchword, "sustainability." The United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development held in June 2012 issued a report that reiterated the totalitarian ambitions of both Earth Summits and the Agenda 21

project. "Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective," detailed the trillions of dollars that must be spent moving the entire world towards a "green" economy, where every aspect of human behavior would be regulated by a top-down, command-and-control bureaucracy.

Havel foresaw exactly such a development. "There is no doubt that it is our duty to rationally protect nature for future generations," he writes. "The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas. That is not only unfair but also extremely dangerous."

That is a far more elegant way of describing how those who celebrate Earth Day envision implementing their agenda. Less elegant, but far more familiar, is the phrase that both communists and radical environmentalists thoroughly embrace, as in, "by any means necessary."

Earth Day was the impetus behind this mushrooming desire for global power, hidden by an environmental facade. Villainous mankind, whose expressions of waywardness have changed over the decades — from the polluter, to the deforester, to the animal species eliminator, and finally to climate fouler of the entire planet — must be brought to heel. Toward that end there has been a remarkable consistency. Earth Day remains a celebration of anti-capitalism, anti-humanism, population control and ill-disguised totalitarianism.

Two of Earth Day's founders make these assertions clear. Denis Hayes: "America has a mechanism to deal with things that are not well-served by the market. It's called government. Government is the way that we assert the fundamental values of the majority, constrained by the rights of the minority. Government is the realm in which we decide what is dispensable and what is — literally — priceless." Paul Ehrlich: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."

Arnold Ahlert is a columnist for FrontPage Magazine1