3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting
By Jon Rappoport
3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting
By Jon Rappoport
By Derrick Broze – July 7, 2016
In a recent speech, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency discussed the controversial topic of geoengineering, leading some activists to ask whether the agency is actively and deliberately modifying the weather.
In late June, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting about threats to global security. Director Brennan mentioned a number of threats to stability before discussing the science of geoengineering. Brennan said the technologies “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.”
(Brennan mentions geoengineering at 12:05)
According to a 2013 congressional report:
The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) (or albedo-modification)method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.
Director Brennan specifically mentions a type of SRM known as stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI. As Brennan notes, SAI is “a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.”
Brennan goes on to claim that an SAI geoengineering program could limit global temperature increases, a claim that has been disputed in several studies. For example, Activist Post recently reported on a new analysis released by the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The FMI is the government agency responsible for reporting weather data and forecasts in Finland. The Institute’s study, “Modelling radiative and climate effects of aerosols: from Anthropogenic emissions to geoengineering,” examined the potential for SRM to combat climate change.
The study specifically looked at two types of SRM. The first involved marine aerosol concentrations use to increase clouds, while the second looked at increasing the amount of sulphur concentrated in the stratosphere. The researchers stated that their key objectives were to “investigate the potential of aerosols to cool the climate at the global scale, and identify the possible limits in the effectiveness of the Solar Radiation Management techniques as well as the risks related to these techniques.”
The researchers found that the geoengineering techniques which were studied do in fact have the potential to cool the climate and slow down warming. “However, the cooling effect has limitations,” the team writes.“The cooling effect attributable to aerosols would be rather small due to the geographical change in tropospheric aerosol emissions or change in energy production studied here when compared to the warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions,” the paper states.
In other words, the effort, money, and time it would take to invest and create geoengineering methods would likely do very little to actually limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers even state that, based on their models, if the world replaced coal with nuclear power for energy production it would lead to a “temporal cooling effect,” but after several years “the warming effect from simultaneously increased GHG emission would exceed the cooling effect.” Also, the cooling that does result from an increase in aerosols is “often achieved at the cost of air quality” which could “lead to an increase in premature mortality.”
In February 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.
The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management,” seems to indicate that once geoengineering begins, the programs cannot be suspended without causing the very problem the engineering was intended to solve.
The idea that aerosols could be sprayed from planes is eerily reminiscent of various conspiracies involving the government using weather control technology to manipulate world events. This is what is derogatorily called the “Chemtrails Conspiracy.” Essentially, some believe geoengineering is actively taking place in our skies, and the “contrails” are actually geoengineering programs covertly being carried out. The “chemtrails” label comes from the portion of the crowd that believes these programs are delivering dangerous chemical additives to the food, water, soil, and humans below for nefarious purposes.
Despite the knee-jerk dismissal from many casual researchers, the theories might be grounded in reality. In February 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Professor Alan Robock discussed the possibility that the CIA is using the weather as a weapon of war. Robock has done research for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) in the past.
Robock stated he was phoned by two men claiming to be from the CIA, asking whether or not it was possible for hostile governments to use geoengineering against the United States.
Professor Robock’s fears of the government using the weather as a weapon are not completely unfounded. In a 1996 document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025” the U.S. Air Force discusses a number of proposals for using the weather as a weapon. The Environmental Modification Treaty was signed by the United States and other nations to halt global weather modification.
But the government did not simply research these ideas, they actually implemented them. During the Vietnam War the US government operated covert weather modification programs under Operation Popeye. The government does not only experiment with technology in foreign countries, they like to try it at home as well. In 2012 it was revealed that the US Army sprayed toxic chemicals over the skies of St. Louis without informing the public.
Whether or not Professor Robock’s theory is correct remains to be seen; but for now, Director Brennan’s speech makes it perfectly clear that America’s favorite spy agency is interested in manipulating the weather on a global scale. Whether it’s happening already or will be in the near future, the thought of the CIA (or any agency of government) using the weather as a weapon of war should make it clear that the U.S. government is not operating with reason or concern for the people.
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
By James Corbett – July 6, 2016
Peter Kirby is the author of the new book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project. Today we tackle the two questions most frequently asked by chemtrail skeptics: would the government do something like this and could they do something like this. We also talk about John Brennan’s recent call for stratospheric aerosol injection and a 2016 study on the health effects of stratospheric aerosols.
By Catherine J. Frompovich – JUNE 27, 2016
Dr Rashid A Buttar, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM, Medical Director of the Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research in North Carolina, and colleagues have taken on a project, global in scope, to conduct an online survey questionnaire regarding the health of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated children. Parents and legal guardians anywhere in the world, who have access to a computer, can access that questionnaire here at http://www.vanvcd.org/.
Since there never has been a formal study done by the U.S. CDC or FDA regarding establishing such demographics and data, I encourage ALL parents and legal guardians to take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire so that there can be a beginning point for discussion, plus point-by-point follow through, regarding parents’ claims that vaccines tend to make children more sickly than siblings who are not vaccinated.
Participating in this survey will be one of the most important steps parents can take regarding vaccines, safety and effectiveness.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick(2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich coming in Summer 2016
By Derrick Broze – June 24, 2016
The U.S. Senate has announced a bipartisan deal which will prevent states from labeling genetically modified foods in favor of a federal labeling system. Here’s what you need to know…
On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry agreed on a new bill aimed at labeling foods with genetically modified ingredients. The committee has been trying for several months to get a bill passed before Vermont’s labeling law goes into effect on July 1.
U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow released a statement, calling the bill “an important path forward that represents a true compromise. Since time is of the essence, we urge our colleagues to move swiftly to support this bill.” Roberts said if his colleagues do not act on the bill now Vermont’s law will cause confusion in the marketplace. The bill would give the U.S. Department of Agriculture two years to write the labeling rules.
The bill would also put the USDA in charge of establishing “a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bio-engineered.” Critics of a federal standard worry about the USDA being pressured by biotechnology companies that have a close relationship to U.S. regulatory agencies. The proposal would also require companies producing foods with GE ingredients to post a label, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website (QR code or similar technology). Smaller food manufacturers can use websites or telephone numbers to disclose ingredients.
In late February, Roberts introduced another bill which attempted to create a federal voluntary standard for labeling GE food. Roberts’ Senate Bill 2609, or the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act, would have blocked mandatory labeling efforts by states. In March, the bill failed to reach the 60 votes needed during a procedural vote, with 49 votes in favor and 48 votes against.
Roberts’ bill was similar to the controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House in June 2015 but ultimately failed amid heavy opposition. To critics, the bill was known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act because the law was also aimed at nullifying GMO labeling measures, such as the bill passed in Vermont.
The latest bipartisan effort contains language that is identical to both of the previous bills. The bill would “amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered foods.” It’s safe to say that this new bipartisan compromise is simply the latest version of the DARK Act and will likely live up to it’s name by keeping Americans in the dark regarding what is in their food.
The bipartisan proposal is supported by certain food industry groups that believe state bills like the one in Vermont will lead to increased costs for agriculture, food companies and consumers. “This bipartisan agreement ensures consumers across the nation can get clear, consistent information about their food and beverage ingredients and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state labeling laws,” Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the largest food industry lobby group,told the Associated Press.
Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, said the new bill deserves the name DARK Act because it will prevent consumers from having “clear, on-package labels” as required by the Vermont law. “But this deal from Senators Stabenow and Roberts doesn’t even come close, and would instead require consumers to have smartphones and a cellphone signal to know what they are buying,” Hauter said in a statement. “This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers.”
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and Senator Bernie Sanders both spoke against the new measure. Shumlin criticized the two-year delay, while Sanders said he would do “everything I can” to stop the bill. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reports that the bill “also allows companies to avoid the main thing consumers have demanded – a fast and easy way to determine if a food product they are purchasing was made using genetically engineered crops.”
The key argument seems to be that the new bill would not have as clear labels as Vermont’s law. Senator Stabenow, however, believes the opposite, claiming that the Vermont law would require GMO labeling of a cheese pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. “Throughout this process I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food,” the senator wrote.
The scientific consensus does lean towards the safety of GE foods, but that has not swayed critics and supporters of labeling. A recent report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded GE foods do not pose a health or environmental risk. Critics of the report point to conflicts of interests between researchers with the National Academy of Sciences and biotechnology companies involved in the creation of GE crops.
The environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report, pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of genetic engineering of foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.
Americans who want to know what is in their food need to take control of their own food production and stop relying on large-scale, factory farming which increasingly relies on genetically engineered seeds. Only by taking back the power when it comes to our diets can we stop supporting the systems that are working against our health and freedom. It’s time to grow food, not lawns. It’s time to throw seed bombs everywhere. The revolution is growing and resistance is fertile.
By Jon Rappoport – June 24, 2016
[Eugenics at it’s finest. Wake up people. TMR]
by Jon Rappoport – June 23, 2016
In the vaccine research community, it’s an open secret that the Rockefeller Fund, the UN, and other groups have been backing the development of vaccines that function as agents of population control. This work has been going on for decades.
We’re talking about inducing female sterility.
Through which vaccine? Tetanus, for example, which is given with the diphtheria and pertussis vaccines in a one-shot combination.
The combination has a number of names (and the contents of the vaccines may vary to some degree): DPT, DTP, DTwP, DTaP, Tdap. Tdap is the version currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.
Note: The recently mandated vaccine bill passed in California lists the tetanus vaccine on its schedule of shots that must be given to every public and private school child.
Here, from BBC News (13/10/14) is a bland denial that there is a serious problem with the tetanus vaccine. “Kenya Catholic Church tetanus fears ‘unfounded'”:
“Kenya’s government has dismissed allegations made by the country’s Catholic Church that a tetanus vaccine can cause sterility in women.”
“‘It’s a safe certified vaccine,’ Health Minister James Macharia told the BBC.”
On the other hand—“‘The [health] ministry must stop making noise and allow the Church to sample the vaccines before they are given,’ Dr Stephen Karanja, the chair of the Catholic Doctors Association in Kenya, told the BBC. He said tetanus vaccines tested earlier in the year contained an antigen – an agent that triggers antibody production by the body’s immune system – which could cause sterility in women.”
“But Mr Macharia [Health Minister] said the vaccine had been approved by the World Health Organization and Unicef.”
Let’s dig a little deeper. In fact, a lot deeper.
Here is a blockbuster article published at lifesitenews, a month after the BBC article posted above. Written by Steve Weatherbe, it reveals, among other things, that the Kenyan government and a teacher’s union were taking the Catholic Doctors Association charges very seriously. The headline reads: “Kenyan gymt [government] launches probe into claim UN is using vaccines for ‘mass sterilization'”:
“The health committee of Kenya’s National Assembly has ordered an independent inquiry into the Catholic Church’s claims that a national anti-tetanus vaccination campaign is covering for a sterilization scheme aimed at suppressing the country’s population.
“The news comes as health ministry officials have called for professional discipline against Dr. Stephen Karanja, head of Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association, who raised the alarm about the vaccine.
“At the same time, a teacher’s union has called for a boycott of the vaccination campaign until Catholic claims are disproven.
“The Health Ministry, which is conducting the five-injection, two-year vaccination project on female Kenyans aged 14-49, and the vaccine’s supplier, the World Health Organization, deny the claims of the Church, which has called all along for an independent inquiry.
“Robert Pukose, the government MP who is vice-chairman of the National Assembly’s health committee, explained, ‘We are at loss about who to believe since both sides have tabled [submitted] conflicting results. That is why we need new tests conducted jointly for us to give final and conclusive results,’ according to the Nairobi Standard.
“The inquiry will consist of submitting vaccine samples to a committee of Catholic, government, and independent medical experts. What they will be looking for are traces of HCG, a female hormone produced during pregnancy, which if injected along with traces of tetanus, will produce antibodies. And just as these antibodies will react to a real tetanus infection, so will they react to a pregnancy, causing a miscarriage.
“The Health Ministry submitted its test results on the tetanus vaccine to the committee last week, showing no trace of HCG.
“This week the Catholic bishops’ doctors presented their own test results, all of which showed traces of HCG. Karanja told the committee, ‘The hormone, Beta HCG, is neither a byproduct of, nor a component required for, the manufacture of the tetanus vaccine. It being part of the vaccine is nothing short of a scheme to forcefully render our women incapable of bearing children.’
“The Health Ministry’s Immunization Technical Group, Dr. Collins Tabu, challenged the validity of the Catholic doctors’ test results, asking, ‘Were the samples sent to the labs indeed vaccines? Were they sent in their primary containers and what was the condition of storage? What types of tests were run on them?’
“Unless the tests were done at either of two specialized government labs, they could not be valid, he added.
“But the Kenyan Catholic doctors have told LifeSiteNews via email that the government won’t let anyone get samples of the vaccine for tests—the ones used had to be obtained surreptitiously by devout Catholics. All along the doctors wanted to conduct tests jointly with the government but could not get co-operation.
“Dr. Karanja also told the committee the tests were simple and could be conducted at any lab. Dr. Pukose further undermined Tabu’s argument, noting that both the Health Ministry and the Catholics had submitted results from the Lancet Kenya lab—with contradictory findings.
“Meanwhile Akello Misori, secretary general of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education (Kuppet), advised women to avoid the tetanus shots…
“One big reason for the Church’s concern is that the vaccines are provided by the World Health Organization and UNICEF, two United Nations organizations with a documented involvement in developing a sterilization vaccine using the HCG hormone as an antigen.
“Karanja’s colleague Dr. Wahome Ngare told LifeSiteNews, ‘WHO conducted massive vaccinations campaigns using the tetanus vaccine laced with HCG in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and Philippines in 1994.’ The opposition of the Catholic Church stopped those drives.
“‘What is downright immoral and evil,’ said Ngare, ‘is that the tetanus laced with HCG was given as a fertility-regulating vaccine without disclosing its contraceptive effect to the girls and the mothers. As far as they were concerned, they had gone for an innocent injection to prevent neonatal tetanus.’
“…The [Kenya] National Assembly’s Dr. Pukose issued a stern warning after announcing the joint investigation, saying, ‘Those found to have been misleading Kenyans, whether it is the experts advising the Catholic Church or the Ministry of Health, will be held individually accountable. Playing with the safety and health of Kenyans is a criminal matter.'”
I have made inquiries about the final disposition of the Kenyan government inquiry, and so far I’ve received no answers. It’s possible that the government has left the matter unresolved.
The diphtheria and tetanus vaccines would function as a social and political mask-to hide the sterilizing intent, as millions of women in the Third World would receive vaccines they’re told would protect them against infections and disease.
A letter to a medical journal, The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992. “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics.” Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu, the authors of this letter, report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.
Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.
The late well-known journalist, Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times on September 8, 1994, in his piece “Real U.S. Policy in Third World: Sterilization : Disregard the ’empowerment’ shoe polish-the goal is to keep the natives from breeding,” reviewed the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues.”
“…the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.'”
In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people. Therefore, reduce the population.
Therefore, develop a vaccine that does that job.