Tom Usher wrote or added | I'm going to tie Pearl Harbor and Chemtrails together here, so bear with me.
Concerning Chemtrails (and 9/11, which I'll touch upon below), believing the official governmental statements made ever since they decided to attempt to re-conceal the military experiments and then actual operations is an error made by the more naive, those who are too prepared to accept the idea that "It can't happen here," as in sociopaths coming to power in the US, etc.
[Note: I am cross-referencing this post with two other Wall posts of mine:
There has been a political-socialization process in America that has been geared to considering superiority as inherent but that actually conditions youth to not question. They are conditioned to disregard their inhibitions concerning right versus wrong. They are taught to like to kill and murder those who don't readily conform to that whole process regardless of the right or wrong of it.
The fact is that the American system has resulted in huge errors, hugely immoral acts, which have been then excused or ignored or covered up by that system. We seen the long histories of the atrocities and false-flag operations, etc., all of which were completely unnecessary and even counter-productive.
To see that history of atrocities and false-flag operations and then arbitrarily to draw the lines at chemtrails and/or 9/11 is irrational. It is not based upon sound reasoning. I have never read a single article or book that posits that 9/11 had zero inside elements to it or that chemtrails don't exist as deliberately persistent but are the result of ordinary jet-fuel exhaust which articles and books are based upon sound reasoning but rather more of the same appeal to American exceptionalism and without addressing that issue directly.
The long histories of the atrocities and false-flag operations exist. Needless atrocities and false-flag operations did occur with the foreknowledge and consent of those at the top. We know that John F. Kennedy rejected and thereby prevented one such false-flag operation (Operation Northwoods), which tells us that it would be unlikely that all the other false-flag operations that did go forward were the result of rogue elements – rogue against the then President. How many sitting Presidents would not have fired such rogue elements and dealt with them severely? It is a stretch to base one's thinking on the idea that no President or other extremely high ranking governmental officials ever had anything to do with authorizing "harsh interrogation techniques," a mere euphemism for torture for instance.
We know that George W. Bush has openly admitted that he authorized the illegality, as if he had the legal authority to do that. He hasn't even said that if he had it to do over that he would have said no to the "torture memos" of Jay Bybee and John Yoo, etc.
We know Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. Those of us who are familiar with "Day of Deceit" and who have shaken off the conditioning of "American Exceptionalism," know that Franklin Roosevelt lied about Pearl Harbor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo There are others, but those two stick out, for one, because both were Democrats. Just to be "fair and balanced," George W., of course, was and is a Republican, and we know about the plan to paint US military jets in UN colors and then get Saddam Hussein to shoot one down. We certainly remember George's infamous "sixteen words": ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
I'm using Wikipedia here not because Wikipedia is always authoritative but to point out that these historical events are not hidden. The Wikipedia has been used by the CIA and FBI, etc., in that both have officially edited the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia has acknowledged that this has happened and has taken open steps to avoid at least the outward appearance of being a platform for mind-wars and psy-ops, etc. Even if the Wikipedia is still used in that capacity, with or without, the Wikipedia's consent, the fact remains that facts do make it into the Wikipedia and that there is a community of editors who will protect even controversial but established facts. The McCollum Memo is real. The US government did carry it out, just the way the Bybee and Yoo memos were used; but the McCollum memo was never to see the light of day as cover for plausible deniability, meaning an excuse for the non-lawyer, George W. Bush in this instance (who nevertheless knew full well that waterboarding was torture and illegal – he simply lied about it, as he lied about so much else – impeached his own witness to the American people and world over and over and over).
Those infamous sixteen words were the tipping point in American public opinion – sealing the deal in the false propaganda campaign to get the American people onboard for the wrongful and illegal attack on, and invasion of, Iraq.
Colin Powell didn't fool us with his computer graphics presented to the UN as evidence. We also remember the Big Lie about the "incubator babies" in Kuwait, which lie by George H. W. Bush was deliberately designed to cause disgust and even rage in the American people against Iraq and Saddam.
We know all about all the blatant lies in the lead-up to the invasion of Afghanistan before it. The Taliban was ready openly to deal but was deliberately ignored.
The two major political parties are equal opportunity employers when it comes to lying scoundrels for President.
Sure Johnson had his "War on Poverty," but that doesn't excuse his lies. FDR too was a mixed bag. Even the two Georges occasionally did isolated things one could and should commend.
Anyway, my point is that those are naive at best who 1) dismiss 9/11 inside-job preponderance of unanswered, uninvestigated leads or 2) dismiss chemtrails, even though the more observant amongst those old enough to remember saw the dramatic, instant change from zero-persistent trails (under such weather conditions) to very long-lasting trails when there had been zero changes in generally used jet fuels.
Yesterday at 2:44pm • Like •
This is interesting too:
I've read different accounts about what Dennis Kucinich said about this. One suggested that he said the Chemtrails part was slipped in without his knowledge or approval.
16 hours ago • Like •
"...creation of an aerial antenna using a barium stearate chemical trail." I'm glad I found this. It's what I was saying in a previous Wall-post comment (link to the Wall post is in the first comment above). I remembered about this from my days in Arizona but had never seen it in writing anywhere before.
16 hours ago • Like •
"In 1998 an American Meteorological Society report conceded that over the past 20 years 'experiments had been carried out on lightning suppression.'" Oh, I'm glad I found this too. It's another statement I made in that same Wall-post comment I just mentioned in the comment immediately above.
15 hours ago • Like •
Here's another interesting article. It's somewhat redundant but has enough additional info to make it worth the read. It appears that Bob Fitrakis is the go-to guy on Chemtrails at least concerning the early stuff. I'll have to check out more of his more recent writings.
15 hours ago • Like •
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)