Natural News just ran an expose entitled “Environmentalists Are At War With Life on Earth” – see link below. The central theme of the article is this: “photosynthesis requires sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to function, yet climate change propagandists have now declared war on two out of those three inputs required to sustain nearly all plant life on our planet.”

As the article stated, war has been declared on sunlight through various global engineering initiatives, the latest of which has been dubbed “global dimming”, a topic I covered recently (Geoengineering – An Exotic Name For Chemtrails, December 19, 2018).  The goal is “to pollute the skies and diminish the intensity of sunlight reaching all plant life on Earth.”  The endgame is to cripple global crop production which will suffer greatly without sufficient sunlight.

Then, there’s the curious case of the war on carbon dioxide.  I say curious because carbon dioxide is the “single most important nutrient to support plan life – forests, food crops and ocean life.”  Yet, no less than Al Gore wants to restrict the production of carbon dioxide and many world leaders have called for so-called “carbon taxes” to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Wow! So, let’s restrict the amount of the most important plant life nutrient that can be put into the environment.

Note: Carbon taxes is a big part of the Yellow Vest protest in France.

While some people, no doubt, will consider this perspective to be very close to heresy, I feel that the article could have actually gone even further.  Point being that the article said that war has been declared on two of the three legs of photosynthesis. However, I would say that it’s actually all three.  You see there was no mention of the war on water, perhaps because it was considered beyond the scope of the article.  Many people are coming to realize that the technology, generally a combination of HAARP and chemtrails, exists to manipulate the weather, including violent storms.  For example, in Iran, lakes are turning into deserts and the lack of water is fast becoming a national security issue, not to mention having a devastating economic impact.  The Iran government has accused the United States of eco-terrorism through the use of technology to produce drought conditions in Iran (see link below). Supporting that idea is a statement by William Cohen, the then U.S. Secretary of Defense, who admitted that governments “are engaging… in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.”

Natural News also published an article on climate change (see link below) which is an interesting read and from which I have excerpted the following quotes:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All of these are caused by human intervention…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Aurelio Peccei, founder of the Club of Rome

Comment: The real enemy is humanity itself? The elites underlying agenda is to eliminate the enemy – humanity itself. That’s why they have developed the idea that man is responsible for climate change. That’s why we have the Georgia Guidestones. Get people to believe that man, himself, is the enemy. The endgame is transhumanism. That’s why physicist Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk view artificial intelligence as the greatest threat to the survival of the human species. Actually, there are two major contributors to climate change.  The overarching cause is that it is driven by the natural cycles of the sun.  The second cause is that it is intentionally created by man. Intentionally, you understand.  However, it is not created by the average person or by his activities on the planet (e.g. production of consumer goods).  Rather, it is intentionally created by the elites, a created crisis, so that they can provide the masses with the solution.

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

Comment: I guess this amounts to as close to a public admission that the global warming science is phony as we’re going to get. The “justice and equality in the world” phrase means that everyone will be treated equally (ergo: no middle class). Of course, there will always be an upper class who the rules don’t apply to – like Al Gore flying around in his private jet.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

Comment: Translation – We know we faked the global warming science. So, what? Keep your eyes on the ball (our agenda of total control).  It is the right thing for us (although not for the masses) and that is what matters.

If you are getting numb from all of this, I don’t blame you.  It is a lot to wrap one’s mind around.  If you’re one of those who touts climate change, I’m surprised that you’re still reading this. However, if you have an inquiring mind and want to understand this issue better, go research it yourself.  You certainly don’t have to take my word on it. Don’t believe the climate change pundits either.  They’re the ones who will tell you all about the supposed scientific consensus on the issue.  I said supposed. As William Casey, the then director of the CIA, said, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

The climate change movement is not based on science nor is it environmental in nature (no pun intended). Rather, it is a political tool of control.  Just another tactic of the Deep State.


“The climate change movement is a death cult. Their target is photosynthesis, the basis of all sustainable, complex life on planet Earth.” – Natural News



(1) with-life-on-earth-total-collapse-of-ecosystem-the-real-goal-of-climate-propagandists.htm



There’s a new breed of politicians loose in the country.  They are hell-bent on making America poor again (MAPA).  MAPA has overnight become the new MAGA.  Go figure.

When I was growing up, my parents (and their generation) were driven by the idea of the American Dream. The American Dream was sometimes represented by the picture of a house with a white picket fence around it. In front of the house was pictured a father, a mother, and two kids, a boy and a girl. Oh yeah, and a dog. That, for them, was the embodiment of the American Dream.  They simply wanted to work hard so as to provide for their families, and the government was there to provide an infrastructure of jobs and security towards that end.

Now, the world is headed in a totally different direction. MAPA has a radically new agenda. Some of the losers in this new paradigm are the very people that we should be caring for the most, veterans and the homeless.  In my day, veterans were treated more like heroes and the homeless…well, there weren’t hardly any. Certainly, there were no tent cities.

Under the banner of socialism, and social justice, the government will no longer represent its current citizens.  By that, I mean that priority will now to be given to new immigrants. No longer will there be a designation of “illegal immigrant” because the borders will be open and virtually everyone will be allowed in.

Oddly enough, another group of losers under MAPA are minorities and those people who had immigrated in the past. I know that may sound counterintuitive to some but the jobs that go to the new immigrants will have to come from somewhere (unless the new immigrants are going to go on the welfare rolls).  Not only will there be a loss of jobs for minorities, but the hourly wages paid for other jobs will be lower because of the competition from the new immigrants. That’s basic economics.  Of course, the new social programs will be funded by higher taxes, Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have already said so.  Ocasio-Cortez is currently promoting an increase in the top individual income tax rate to 70%.

Ultimately, what will all this look like?  For starters, population of the U. S. will soar. It could well double in just five years. Birth rates will go up sharply causing another upward spike in population. Will there be jobs for another 300-400 million people? Of course, not. Even a relatively healthy growth rate in the economy would add no more than 3 million jobs per year and certainly there will be down years and even recessions, or worse yet a depression.  And forget about how we’re going to house such a big influx of people. Tent cities will sprout up everywhere, including across the street from you. On the other side of the coin, businesses will move their operations to other countries as this will no longer be a healthy environment for them.  As a result, significant jobs will actually be lost.

There will be a resulting disparity between the number of people working and the number of people not working which will make it necessary to raise taxes even higher. In addition, high-income people will also leave the country causing a brain drain and capital outflows and there will be a complete collapse of the middle class.  The gap between the haves and the have-nots will widen even further, actually a lot further.

Welcome to the world of MAPA.



In the end, America will become not much better than a third-world nation.  Of course,without borders, there will be no nation because sovereignty is the result of having real borders.  Inevitably, ultimate authority will rest with the United Nations.  Hope you’re ready for Agenda 21.



“Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist, and she’s determined to give the voters exactly what they’ve asked for.  Free school.  Free drugs.  Free retirement.  And a guaranteed income for showing up to pretend jobs that are little more than adult daycare.”  – Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge


So much fuss over a wall. What is the average person suppose to make of it all? To wall or not to wall, that seems to be the question.

In order to understand this issue a little, one really has to look at what the politicians don’t say as opposed to what they do say. So for example, Democrats universally oppose the use of government funds for construction of a wall.  That’s their current public position as we all well know. However, what they don’t tell you is that they have either voted for a Southern border wall and/or publicly supported the financing of such a wall prior to Trump being elected. This group includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren, among many others.

As for Trump, he says that we have a crisis at the Southern border and that we must build a wall. That’s his public position as we all well know. Trump has mentioned several times that if the Democrats don’t give him the funds, he may have to invoke a national emergency. That’s closer to the real reason, but what does that mean?

Here’s what he’s not saying, though. It’s not about the money.  It’s not even about the wall, although politically Trump is committed to the building of such a wall.  The overarching reason is that the wall represents a rationale for the public to support the declaration of a national emergency.

So, why does Trump want to declare a national emergency? Well, technically he doesn’t have to as the United States has been operating under a declared national emergency due to an executive order which Trump signed back on December 20, 2017. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, to wit:

  • The United States has been operating under a state of declared war since September, 2001, following the 911 attacks. This explains the strange questions that Senator Lindsey Graham posed to Judge Kavanaugh during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing; questions about military tribunals that would only be relevant if the United States was currently in a state of declared war.
  • On March 21, 2011, Barack Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault against Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council.  This was an attempted explanation of why Obama committed American forces to the war in Libya without the approval of Congress.  Approximately one year later on March 14, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified during a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing and further explained that Obama’s actions were because the United Nations and NATO had supreme authority over the U.S. military forces.
  • On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” That executive order gave the President the authority to take over all of the country’s resources (e.g. labor, food, industry) as long as it is done for reasons of national defense.
  • On July 6, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” That executive order granted the President absolute control over all U.S. media, including social media, news networks and news websites.

If you’re not already in a state of shock yet, consider this. The President (any president) has at their disposal almost dictatorial powers as a result of the various executive orders signed by then President Obama.  In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2102 codified into U.S. law the authority of the President to imprison indefinitely, anyone, including American citizens, deemed to be a “terrorist threat” to the United States, without trial or due process. Anyone who the President deems is a terrorist, you understand.

And you probably thought that you were living in a republic.



The palpable panic inside The Beltway is because these dictatorial presidential powers have now been transferred from who the Deep State intended would be president, Hillary Clinton, to an outsider. The resulting chaos in Washington is…well, you can only describe it as Civil War.


 “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”  – George Orwell


There are three corporations that run the world.  No, I’m not talking about Apple, Microsoft and Walmart.  Oddly enough, it’s The City of London (financial district), The Vatican and Washington D.C. Yes, corporations one and all.

These three corporations have a number of things in common. For example, The City of London (also known as The Crown) is not part of England nor is it in any way affiliated with the actual city of London, England.  Sounds confusing, right?  Likewise, The Vatican is not part of Italy, but rather is a sovereign country recognized under international law.  It is run by the Holy See.  Lastly, we have the District of Columbia which is not part of the United States of America. Now, that may sound strange but it’s no stranger than the fact that the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service are not part of the U. S. Government.  If you think that the District of Columbia is part of the United States, I invite you to check out the Act of 1871.  If you do, it might surprise you to find out what else is a corporation.

All three corporations have their own laws and all three have their own independent police/military force.  The Vatican, for example, is protected by the Swiss Guards.  Then, there’s this: all three are home to a famous Egyptian obelisk, one of which is the Washington Monument.

Finally, all three have this in common… European banks.  Surprise, bet you didn’t see that coming.  For example, the Federal Reserve is owned by…European banks.  More or less, the same ones that have connections to The Crown and The Vatican.  What are the odds of that?  It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know. By the way, who did you think ran the world?


“You can either be informed and be your own rulers, or you can be ignorant and have someone else, who is not ignorant, rule over you.”  – Julian Assange



Science says that the universe is missing.  Missing, you understand. They can’t find the “dark matter” and “dark energy,” assuming that they even exist.  Actually, at this point in time, they’re simply part of a formula on a chalkboard and nothing more.

Then, there’s the trivial matter that the universe shouldn’t even exist.  Of course, it does.  Well, doesn’t it? The backstory/theory goes something like this. The Big Bang was supposedly the beginning of all life.  According to the laws of physics, the universe is composed of matter and anti-matter in exactly equal and offsetting amounts. As a result, the universe should have been cancelled out and, therefore, we should not exist – according to the laws of physics, you understand.

Then, there’s the question of what came before the Big Bang?  This is a rather sticky wicket, so to speak. Science doesn’t know what came before the Big Bang, and actually it’s not their fault because it’s impossible for anyone to ever know. That’s because science is based on observation and measurement and, as John Horgan said in his book entitled The End of Science, we can’t observe what took place before the Big Bang because it is outside of space and time.  How about singularities, then? I won’t bother trying to explain what a singularity is… because I don’t know. As for science, they seem pretty confused on the subject as well.  For example, physicist Andrew Strominger of Harvard University stated that, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do.  What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.” Yeah, that is pretty embarrassing.

According to science, inflation is the dynamite at the core of The Big Bang Theory.  However, Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, stated that, ‘If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.”  Myself, I would say that they should actually be looking for the matchmaker.  Bottom line: If you can’t identify the matchmaker, you can’t possibly write the true laws of physics.

Some scientists today have come to believe that there must be things beyond our universe.  As a result, science has “progressed” to string theory, multiverse theory and simulation theory, just to name a few. As physicist John Wheeler put it,“The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.” Then, there is Max Planck who believes that consciousness is fundamental to Nature. If either of those gentlemen are correct, the only conclusion that I can draw is that we have absolutely no idea who we are as a species.

Science has reached its fundamental limits and yet we have a number of major loose ends at this point. There’s the matchmaker, the observers/participators (according to Wheeler) and consciousness. With such big issues, seemingly with no answers, who really cares, then, if the universe is missing?


“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”  – Bernard d’Espagnat, physicist



The continued hysteria, at least in some quarters, over supposed Russian collusion in U.S. elections gets weirder by the day.  Case in point: The Los Angeles Times just published an article called, “Beware of Russian Bots Under The Bed.” Satire, no doubt.

Back in March 2018, Zero Hedge published an article entitled “As Russian Bot Narrative Unravels, Even Liberals Say Enough Is Enough” (see the following link for the full story - The article quoted Rob Goldman, Facebook’s VP of advertising, who tweeted: “The majority of Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election.”

Even the left-wing Washington Post noted that, “The U.S. political conversation is not and probably never was driven by Russian social-media bots.” Yet, the story has persisted in the mainstream media.

Nine months later we’re still talking about Russian bots. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee recently released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout in the 2016 elections. However, the real story was where the information for this report came from. The New York Times blew the lid off of the whole Russia bot madness in an article entitled, “Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics.” As the New York Times reported, the source of the Senate Intelligence Committee report was a non-governmental group called New Knowledge who, working with the Democrats, created fake Facebook groups and fake Russian bots in order to influence Alabama’s 2017 special election for the Senate in favor of the Democratic candidate. The New York Times also reported that New Knowledge, by its own admission, had boasted that it had orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore (Republican candidate) campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”  RT very recently did a follow-up on the New York Times article which was entitled “The Russian bots Meddling in U.S. Elections Belonged to Democrat-linked ‘Experts’” (see the following link for the full story – which linked the New York Times story to the election tampering of the 2016 elections and who was really tampering who.

I’m sure that it will be debated ad nauseam whether this whole affair was just another example of political dirty tricks or whether it actually broke election laws.  I’m also sure that going forward the Russian collusion story will not go away, even if there is no evidence to support it.  After all, the Russian bots are coming.


“Everyone I Don’t Agree With Is a Russian Bot – A child’s guide to media and government excuse-making for political failures”

                         – A Little Golden Book meme