Of Evolutionary Engagement
The Victory Against You in the Silent War is Your Silence
Celebrating In Dependence
USA USA USA!
Under Penalty of Drone
- Cop Accidentally Shoots 4-Year-Old, Walks Away Without Helping
Editor’s Note: The innocent days of protect and serve are long over, and some officers seem very far gone. But how could this incident even have happened? Is this really what some individuals in uniform are capable of? Is there any humanity left?
On June 19th, an accidental shooting involving a police officer was reported in Whitehall, Ohio. The officer was responding to an unrelated case, when a girl rushed over to him from a house down the street. Her sister Ava had been badly injured by a broken piece of glass, and was hoping the officer could help her. He decided to investigate the situation before calling an ambulance. Once inside, the family dog apparently charged at him, causing him to open fire on the dog. But instead of hitting the animal, he accidentally struck Ava in the leg (She’s currently in stable condition, and is recovering from her injuries).
As bad as that sounds, the family has revealed their side of the story, and it’s far worse than the one reported last month. They claim that the dog did not charge the officer at all, and that after shooting their daughter, he didn’t offer any kind of medical assistance. In fact, they claim he never said anything at all. He simply walked away from the scene.
With almost all the ballots counted, results from the Greek referendum show voters decisively rejecting the terms of an international bailout.
Figures published by the interior ministry showed nearly 62% of those whose ballots had been counted voting “No”, against 38% voting “Yes”.
Greece’s governing Syriza party had campaigned for a “No”, saying the bailout terms were humiliating.
Their opponents warned that this could see Greece ejected from the eurozone.
“Today we celebrate the victory of democracy, but tomorrow all together we continue and complete a national effort for exiting this crisis,” Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said in a televised address.
He said that voters had granted him “not a mandate against Europe, but a mandate to find a sustainable solution that will take us out of this vicious circle of austerity”.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence, Signed July 4, 1776
We wring our hands and we cry foul and we wonder what can be done to alleviate the problem. The SCOTUS members are appointees of a POTUS with an an agenda and a party affiliation and the appointments are, alas, for life. Each member knows that once appointed, they, no matter how they vote on an issue, they are safe from any election that would oust them from their comfort zones.
These days, when people, due to advancements in medicine, live longer than they did a hundred years ago. The body is in relatively good health but sometimes the mind, for one reason or another, fails. That fact could be an argument for the changing of the rule to electing members of SCOTUS by the public.
The recent “rulings” by SCOTUS on Gay Marriage, was a complete farce. They have no right to define that. An overwhelming number of American citizens are totally anti-gay marriage. We all know, by this stage, that the LGBTQ contingent comprises a mere 2.5% of the population. How have they, with such a tiny percentage, managed to strong-arm this entire country into allowing this travesty?
If you are outraged and in the other 97.5%, then I want to offer you a solution. I have a friend who has a plan to defeat this abomination. It’s doable, nonviolent, cost-free, easy and will produce results! Contact my friend at:
Citing a lack of candor by the government in its court papers, a federal judge has ordered the return of $167,000 seized from a man’s motor home during a traffic stop near Elko.
State and local law enforcement officers stopped Straughn Gorman, a resident of Hawaii, twice within 50 minutes in January 2013 as he was driving the motor home west on Interstate 80 between Wells and Elko, according to court documents.
A Nevada Highway Patrol trooper said he first stopped Gorman for driving too slow in the fast lane, but after Gorman refused to let him search the motor home he was allowed to go on his way without a citation for anything.
The trooper then arranged for an Elko County sheriff’s deputy with a drug-sniffing dog to stop Gorman again, and the dog alerted the deputy to something suspicious in the motor home, documents show. The search turned up no drugs but the $167,000 was found hidden in various places.
Gorman was not charged with any crime, but his money was seized and turned over to federal authorities for civil forfeiture proceedings. Authorities suspected he was on his way to California to buy marijuana, though Gorman said he was going to visit his girlfriend in Sacramento.
In his June 12 decision, Senior U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks chastised the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s office in Reno for not revealing details about the related first stop in their forfeiture papers.
“In particular, the government has a duty of candor and fair disclosure to the court,” Hicks wrote. “The court expects and relies upon the United States attorney’s office to be candid and forthcoming with material information uniquely held only in possession of the government and clearly relevant to central issues before the court. That did not occur here”
Hicks cited a fellow federal judge’s recent concerns about the government’s candor in the criminal gambling case against Malaysian businessman Paul Phua in Las Vegas.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled that FBI and state gaming agents conducted an illegal search posing as Internet repairmen to gain access to Phua’s luxury Caesars Palace villa before they carried out a court-approved raid there. Agents did not inform the judge who approved the raid about the unprecedented ruse.
Gordon tossed out the evidence against Phua and later dismissed the case after federal prosecutors said they no longer had enough evidence to move forward to trial. Prosecutors are considering appealing Gordon’s decision.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
The court sided with California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices and didn’t lose the entire value of their crop.
But their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to government action that infringes on private property rights. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away.
Roberts rejected the government’s argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don’t like it.
“‘Let them sell wine’ is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history,” Roberts said. “Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated.”
- Supreme Court Decision Makes It Harder for Government to Take Personal Property From Americans
Can the government force raisin farmers to hand over large portions of their crop without paying any compensation?
On Monday, eight members of the Supreme Court resoundingly said, “No!” in Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
Under a 1940s era marketing order intended to maintain profits for domestic raisin producers, farmers are required to sell their raisin crops to raisin handlers, who then remove a portion of the crop from the market for the federal government to destroy or sell overseas at bargain barrel prices. The government sets the compensation price that the producers are to be paid for the surrendered raisins.
The point of this scheme is to artificially limit raisin sales in the United States so as to raise prices and profits for California raisin producers, a result at odds with the free market and with the interests of consumers.
California raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne sought to evade this cartel regulation by handling their own raisin crop rather than by selling it to traditional handlers, to whom the Raisin Order clearly applied. Similarly, by buying and handling other producers’ raisins for a per-pound fee, the Hornes believed that they could avoid the Raisin Order’s definition of “handler” with respect to those purchased raisins.
An Agriculture Department regulator disagreed, finding the Hornes liable for numerous violations and fining them over $695,000, including an assessment of nearly $484,000 for the dollar value of the raisins not held in reserve.
The Hornes challenged the government’s scheme as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking “private property for a public use” “without just compensation.” Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Takings Clause applies to personal property (i.e., raisins) as well as real property (i.e., the family farm). He concluded, “The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”
- It’s Gotten This Bad: California Moves to Restrict Farmers’ Oldest Water Rights
The Associated Press reports that California will move on Friday to restrict century-old water rights in the agriculturally focused Central Valley, a step considered by many to be unthinkable as recently as last year.
Regulators said the first orders Friday will affect those holding century-old water rights in the watershed of the San Joaquin River, which runs from the Sierra Nevada mountains to San Francisco Bay and is one of the main water sources for farms and communities.
In April, prompted to action by a record-low snowpack, the state issued a mandatory 25 percent restriction in urban water use. Gov. Jerry Brown was criticized then for largely ignoring water use by farmers, who use about 80 percent of the state’s water each year. But Friday’s move is groundbreaking in California’s long struggle to reform its unique system of water rights. Many affected farmers paid a premium for land with senior water rights, with the understanding they’d never be cut off. They invested in high-value orchards that require water year-round, with that same understanding in mind. Now that’s all about to change.
Felicia Marcus, the chairwoman of the state Water Resources Control Board, announced the decision at a public meeting Wednesday. “It’s about figuring out how to make terrible choices in the most fair and equitable way possible,” she said. The affected farmers have already vowed to challenge the decision in court, saying any restriction of senior rights amounts to a “water war.”
Dis US Ingenuity
One of the world’s largest sources of funding for gold miners was announced this weekend. But you have to be in the right part of the globe to grab a piece of the investment cash.
China announced that it is leading a massive fund-raising for gold projects. With the country’s Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) expected to help create a pool of capital totaling 100 billion yuan — or about $16.1 billion dollars.
The news came at a major trade and investment forum in China’s northwest Xi’an City. With officials from China’s Industrial Fund Management Company here saying that the billion-dollar fund will investment in gold miners operating in one specific geographic area.
Proceeding Without Authority
A federal appeals court on Friday overturned a 2013 ruling that ordered the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to sell more timber in southern Oregon.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also overturned a ruling in the same case that had annulled a system federal scientists used to estimate the harm to northern spotted owls, a threatened species, from logging projects.
The appeals court found that timber companies and organizations demanding more timber under a 1937 law known as the O&C Act had no standing to sue because they failed to show evidence they suffered harm from reduced logging levels. The appeals court did not address the issue of whether the O&C Act directs the Bureau of Land Management to run its timberlands in western Oregon primarily for timber production.
- High-ranking BLM official convicted in Montana of fraud and theft The former state director of the Bureau of Land Management’s Eastern States Region, which is responsible for management of public lands and resources under the BLM in 31 States east of and bordering the Mississippi River, was convicted of fraud and theft by a federal jury in Great Falls on Wednesday.
John Grimson Lyon, 61, of Clifton, Virginia, faces a possible prison sentence of 30 years, $750,000 in fines, and $112,000 in forfeitures.
- BLM plan to close over 1,000 public routes riles western Colorado
A plan that will close nearly 2,000 miles of public roads that have previously been open for use by the people of Mesa County is creating a public backlash against the Grand Junction field office of the federal Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM’s resource management plans (RMP) regulate the access and types of traffic allowed on roads on public lands. Road maintenance and seasonal closures are also detailed in such plans.
- Forest Service, BLM Propose Mining in Sensitive Habitat The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest and Cottonwood Field Office of the BLM have proposed opening the South Fork Clearwater River, French Creek and Orogrande Creek to dredge mining operations. If approved, up to 35 mining operations could be allowed in these waters that provide habitat for threatened and endangered salmon, steelhead and trout. Is the Federal Government Required to Approve Mining?
Under the Mining Law of 1872, the Forest Service and BLM have limited authority to deny a mining operation.
- Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years
A federal judge’s ruling against the Securities and Exchange Commission for using its own Administrative Law judges in an insider trading case is perhaps the beginning of the end of an alternative system of justice that took root in the New Deal. Constitutionally, the socialists tore everything about the idea of a Democracy apart. It was more than taxing one party to the cheers of another in denial of equal protection. It was about creating administrative agencies (1) delegating them to create rules with the force of law as if passed by Congress sanctioned by the people; (2) the creation of administrative courts that defeated the Tripartite government structure usurping all power into the hand of the executive branch, as if this were a dictatorship run by the great hoard of unelected officials.
- SEC Insider Trading Case Brought As Administrative Proceeding Enjoined The SEC’s shift to administrative proceedings in recent months has spawned a series of suits against the agency challenging its forum selection authority. The suits have generally met with little success. Nevertheless, earlier this week, Judge Leigh Martin May, sitting in the Northern District of Georgia, issued a preliminary injunction against the Commission, precluding the agency from proceeding with a hearing in an insider trading case before an SEC administrative law judge. Hill v. SEC, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01801 (N.D. Ga. Filed June 8, 2015).
Plaintiff Charles Hill is a self-employed real estate developer. The SEC brought an administrative proceeding in which he was named as a Respondent alleging insider trading. In the Matter of Charles L. Hill, Jr., Adm. Proc. File No. 3-16383 (Feb. 11, 2015). The action centered on the tender offer by NCR Corporation for Radiant Systems, Inc., announced on July 11, 2011 after the close of the markets. The Order alleges that the COO of Radiant tipped a friend about the takeover who in turn tipped Mr. Hill (here).
Mr. Hill claims that he was not tipped. He claims to have purchased the shares based on personal knowledge and experience with the firm’s product and management.
In the administrative proceeding Mr. Hill moved for summary disposition based on three constitutional arguments: 1) That the proceeding violated Article II of the Constitution because ALJs are protected by two layers of tenure protection; 2) that Congress’ delegation of authority to the SEC to pursue cases against non-regulated persons before ALJs violates the delegation doctrine in Article I of the Constitution; and 3) that Congress violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by permitting the SEC to bring the action in an administrative forum. ALJ Grimes concluded he did not have authority to rule on issues 2 and 3 and probably not on 1, although he denied an Article II claim for removal on the merits. A hearing on the merits was set for June 15, 2015.
The district court complaint requests that the Court: 1) Declare the administrative proceeding unconstitutional for the same reasons asserted in the administrative proceeding; and 2) enjoin the administrative proceeding. That complaint was amended to include a claim that the SEC ALJ’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of Article II. The Court granted a preliminary injunction based on the Appointment Clause claim, rejecting the others.
The Court first turned to the question of jurisdiction. The SEC claimed that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the administrative proceeding, with its review by a court of appeals, has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitution claims. The Court rejected this claim. The SEC’s position “is in tension with 28 U.S.C. Section 1331” which grants the federal district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the U.S. the Court began. To restrict this grant of jurisdiction there must be evidence of Congressional intent. In Free Enterprise. Fund. V. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) the Court held that provisions regarding agency review do not restrict judicial authority unless the statutory scheme evidences “fairly discernible” intent to so limit jurisdiction.
In this case the Court concluded that “Congress’s purposeful language allowing both district court and administrative proceedings shows a different intent . . . there is no language indicating that the administrative proceeding was to be an exclusive forum . . . The SEC cannot manufacture Congressional intent by making that choice for Congress . . .” the Court stated.
To bolster its conclusion the Court considered three factors used in Free Enterprise Fund to analyze the question: 1) If a finding of preclusion could foreclose all meaningful judicial review; 2) if the suit is wholly collateral to a statute’s review provisions; and 3) if the claims are outside the expertise of the agency. Here, all three factors cut against the position of the SEC.
First, while judicial review is available through the administrative process following that path “could foreclose all meaningful judicial review” of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims since Plaintiff would be forced to endure what is claimed to be an unconstitutional process – the claim here does not depend on the outcome of the administrative proceeding but rather challenges that action. Indeed, “[w]aiting until the harm Plaintiff alleges cannot be remedied is not meaningful judicial review” the Court concluded.
The other two Free Enterprise factors also fail to support the SEC’s position. The claims here are wholly collateral to the SEC proceeding because they challenge the action itself, not the insider trading claim. Likewise, the constitutional claims presented are outside the expertise of the agency. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction.
Turing to the merits of the claim for a preliminary injunction, the Court focused on the likelihood of success on the merits. The non-delegation claim turns on Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution which vests all legislative powers in the Congress. While Congress can delegate its decision making power to agencies it must by legislative act specify an “intelligent principle to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed to conform.” Plaintiff claims this Article was violated because Dodd-Frank gave the SEC unfettered discretion to select the forum.
The Court rejected Plaintiff’s Article I claim, concluding that “[w]hen the SEC makes it forum selection decision, it is acting under executive authority and exercising prosecutorial discretion.” This is similar to the Court’s decision in U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) which rejected a non-delegation challenge where the power Congress delegated to the official was no broader than the authority they routinely exercise in enforcing the law. The same is true here.
The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s Seventh Amendment claim. Mr. Hill argued that the SEC decision to prosecute the claims against him in an administrative proceeding rather than in district court deprived him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. While the SEC did not dispute the fact that if the case was brought in district court Mr. Hill would have been entitled to a jury trial, the Court rejected the claim based on Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 430 U.S. 442 (1977). That case held that the “’Government could commit the enforcement of statutes and the imposition and collection of fines to the judiciary, in which event jury trial would be required . . ., but  the United States could also validly opt for administrative enforcement, without judicial trial.’” Atlas Roofing thus dictates that the Seventh Amendment claim be rejected.
Finally, the Court sustained Plaintiff’s claim under Article II of the Constitution that the AlJ’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause because he was not appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. The resolution of this question hinged on whether the ALJ was an inferior officer as claimed by Plaintiff or an employee as alleged by the SEC.
The Appointments Clause creates two classes of officers, the Court noted. One group is principal officers selected by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The other group is inferior officers who can be appointed by the president, heads of department or the Judiciary. The Clause applies to all agency officers, including those who function predominantly in quasi judicial and quasi legislative roles.
The critical question is whether the official exercises significant authority. If so, the official is an inferior officer. SEC ALJs are inferior officers, the Court concluded. To reach this conclusion the Court analyzed the duties of an SEC administrative law judge. The fact that they do not ultimately have the authority to issue a final order was not determinative. Rather, what proved critical is the fact that the office is established by law and the duties, salary, and means of appointment are specified by statute. The positions are permanent. In addition, ALJs take testimony, conduct trials, rule on the admissibly of evidence and can issue sanctions. Accordingly, and SEC Administrative Law Judge exercises significant authority. Thus they are inferior officers. Nevertheless, they are not appointed in accord with the Appointments Clause. Rather SEC ALJs are hired by the Commission’s Office of Administrative Law Judges in consultation with the Chief ALJ, human resources and OPM. Based on this conclusion the Court entered the preliminary injunction.
In a breakthrough development, Northern District of Georgia federal district judge Leigh Martin May found that Charles Hill, a respondent in a pending SEC administrative proceeding, had a “substantial likelihood of success” of showing that the proceeding against him is unconstitutional because the appointment of the administrative law judge presiding over his case violated the appointments clause of Article II of the Constitution. That is one of several arguments that have been made against the legality of the SEC’s administrative enforcement proceedings, and this is the first court to treat any of those arguments seriously.
Judge May’s decision is here: Order in Hill v. SEC.
- Landmark Income Tax Case: Supreme Court No. 14-1305
There are two kinds of federal trial courts: those of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and those of limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only).
Everyone is familiar with federal rules and regulations: Code of Federal Regulations, United States Code, Internal Revenue Code, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), National Defense Authorization Act, etc.
The only federal courts authorized by the Constitution to hear civil or criminal matters brought against individual Americans for alleged violation of federal rules or regulations are courts of general jurisdiction.
Today, every federal court located within the respective exterior limits of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union, e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, etc., is a court of general jurisdiction.
The problem is that the only geographic area in which federal courts of general jurisdiction are authorized by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction is federal territory; e.g., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.
There is no constitutional authority for a federal court of general jurisdiction to hear a civil or criminal matter against any American who resides and is domiciled in geographic area occupied by one of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union—and no one can produce any such authority.
Notwithstanding this discrepancy: Federal courts of general jurisdiction now blanket every state in the Union and prosecute individual Americans residing there for alleged civil or criminal violation of federal rules and regulations—such as the Internal Revenue Code.
The within petition displays incontrovertible legal evidence and proof of (1) felony (fraud, i.e., gross negligence), by reason of dereliction of the jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution, and treason to the Constitution, by reason of usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area, on the part of every federal judge of every federal court located within the Union, and (2) no jurisdiction for the district court of first instance to hear this matter against Petitioner for alleged violation of the Internal Revenue Code.
THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH WHOSE LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SITUATION.
* * *
Celebrating Agency Threats
When the clean water act was passed in 1972, it seemed reasonable. At the time, America’s waterways were absolute cesspools, that often resembled the state of affairs in countries like China today. While it could be argued that our waterways still have a pollution problem, their contamination levels are a far cry from what they were just a generation ago.
Of course, on the rare occasion that the government does something right, you can’t expect them to keep doing it right forever, especially when a bureaucracy like the EPA is involved. Bureaucracies aren’t that different from a wild animal. Their only concern is their own self preservation, and they don’t care who they hurt to stay alive. The only difference, is that a wild animal won’t make up a problem out of thin air to justify its existence. But for a bureaucracy, that’s what it takes to make sure Congress will keep cutting them a check. That’s what they do to “stay alive” so to speak.
So when the EPA tells us that the majority of rivers and streams in the US are too polluted to support aquatic life, you have to ask yourself, what exactly is their definition of a river or a stream? In reality, it’s completely subjective, and is dictated by their needs and whims. Apparently, the Clean Water Act isn’t specific enough when it comes to defining a body of water, so it has opened a Pandora’s box of regulation and red tape, and the EPA is more than happy to exploit the act’s broad definitions.
Case in point, the EPA has recently decided to redefine the nature of a waterway, and if their new rule change comes to pass, it threatens to make life miserable for every property owner in America.
- Supreme Court blocks EPA mercury rule with surreal overestimated tech costs Monday’s Supreme Court decision in favor of 23 states that challenged the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants is, “unlikely to remove the heat on coal.” The 5-4 Supreme Court decision very heavily emphasized the EPA‘s insufficient consideration of the overburdensome costs required to drastically reduce air toxins emitted by power plants throughout the United States. Yet, Supreme Court decisions on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide EPA rules actually brought an end to 44 outdated coal power plants between 2002 and 2011. The most surprising aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision is near complete reduction of mercury emissions by municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators from 57 and 51 emission tons per year to 2 and 1 ton per year respectively between 1990 and 2005 as a result of EPA regulations. The near failure of power plants to follow suit is disappointing at best. Between 1990 and 2005, some of the world’s most heavily capitalized power companies were merely able to reduce mercury emissions by 6 tons per year. As the companies gradually replace coal power plants, they often cite the cost of retrofitting their older systems. Yet, the estimation of the costs by the EPA and the US Supreme Court of air toxin reduction is excessive when carefully assessed and compared to readily available technologies in the power plant marketplace.
A Failure To Protect
- Nuclear Chemist Publishes Paper Detailing: “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity via Geoengineering”
Within the past couple of years alone, the concept of geoengineering has sparked a growing interest (which seems to be accelerating at a rapid rate) within the academic world.
It’s also ignited a heavy interest in policy making, which is no surprise given the fact that we are talking about “geoengineering” the entire global climate in response to global climate change.
That’s exactly what geoengineering is – a response to destructive human activity which we have yet to cease – and it involves injecting stratospheric particles/aerosols into the atmosphere to, again, reduce the effect of global climate change.
For example, SPICE is a United Kingdom government funded geoengineering research project that collaborates with the university of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Bristol to further examine the idea of Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Groundbreaking Paper(s)
Dr. Marvin Herndon, PhD., a nuclear chemist, geochemist, and cosmochemist – most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal – has published a groundbreaking paper in the peer-reviewed journal Current Science (Indian Academy of Sciences) titled “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India.”
The abstract reads as follows:
“In response to an urgent call through an article in Current Science for assistance to understand the geological association of high aluminum mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, I describe evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity that has occurred for at least 15 years, and which has escalated sharply in the last two years. The geoengineering activity via tanker-jet aircraft emplaces a non-natural, toxic substance in the Earth’s atmosphere which with rainwater liberates highly mobile aluminum. Further, I present evidence that the toxic substance is coal combustion fly ash. Clandestine dispersal of coal fly ash and the resulting liberation of highly mobile aluminum, I posit, is an underlying cause of the widespread and pronounced increase in neurological diseases and as well as the currently widespread and increasing debilitation of Earth’s biota. Recommendations are made for verifying whether the evidence presented here is applicable to the Ganga Alluvial Plain.” (source)(source)
The paper goes on to discuss and cite publications which have detected heavy metals like aluminum, barium, strontium, and more in rainwater, fly ash, and more. For example, during the period between July 2011 and November 2012, 73 rainwater samples were collected and analysed for aluminum and barium; 71 were collected from 60 different locations in Germany, 1 from France, and 1 from Austria.
Aluminum was detected in 77% of the rainwater samples, there was also a very high barium concentration and a very high Strontium concentration.
It also discusses how these concentrations of metals are not the result of natural phenomenon, like volcanic explosions, for example.
This isn’t the only recent groundbreaking publication that comes from the world of academia regarding this phenomenon. A few months ago, Dr. Rose Cairns, PhD., who belongs to the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, published a paper in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Journal titled “Climates of suspicion: ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering.” She is also currently undertaking research into the Governance of Geoengineering as part of a multi-disciplinary collaborative project between Sussex University, UCL, and Oxford University (http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/). The project examines the social, ethical, and political implications of climate geoengineering proposals. (source)
In her paper, she describes developments in mainstream academic and political discourse regarding geoengineering, and how climate modification, also being discussed by the citizens of the world (who use the term “chemtrails”), is having devastating ecological and health effects worldwide. According to her paper:
“Understanding the emerging politics of geoengineering, and taking seriously claims regarding the importance of public participation, requires an understanding of the whole discursive landscape around ideas of global climate control – including marginal ideas such as those held by chemtrail activists. Ignoring or dismissing these discourses out of hand as pathological or paranoid is to ignore potentially revealing insights about the emerging politics of geoengineering.” (source)
She also mentions that:
“This analysis suggests a number of ways in which the chemtrail narrative may contain important insights and implications for the emerging politics of geoengineering that cannot be dismissed out of hand as ‘paranoid’ or ‘pathological’.” (source)
Although Dr. Rose is not a proponent of the “chemtrail conspiracy,” it’s great to see another published paper by an academic taking a neutral perspective, recognizing the importance of these claims rather than dismissing them outright.
- Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India
Hot Diggity Doge
The Weekend War Report
The DOGE OF WAR
Unleash the Power of the DOGE OF WAR
Please Donate to RLM
In This Doge Eat Doge World
- The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite.
Factor VI – Cattle
Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.
- Mr. Rothschild’s Energy Discovery
What Mr. Rothschild  had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is “when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you.”
The Law of War
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Where Not Throwing Oppression Off, You Live Either Under an Occupation or by Conquest.
The Choice and Responsibility are Yours
United We Strike
Behind The Woodshed for that practical education & hard but necessary dose of reality.
Spread The Word Behind The Woodshed.