Monday, January 25, 2016
CONGRESS IS WRITING THE PRESIDENT A BLANK CHECK FOR WAR
While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.
The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.
President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.
It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.
The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?
The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch’s power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people’s branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.
Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.
Credit to Infowars
Facebook Is Providing “Red List” User Date to the Chinese Military In Preparation for NATO Led Martial Law
This just in: FACEBOOK is providing user data to the Chinese military. If the Chinese were to ever be a part of an United Nations peacekeeping/martial law force, this should send chills up and down your spine. This means that as an occupying force, the Chinese would be able to form a naught and nice list with regard to martial law occupation.
It is not far-fetched to believe that the Chinese will someday be a part of an occupation force under the UN flag. The United States government is a signatory to a treaty which will bring in foreign troops to restore order in case of civil unrest. Now, Facebook is providing information about you and your family to the Chinese military. How do I know? I am coming out with a special report about the Chinese military hacking another critical American institution which also contains the same frightening overtones. That story will be published on Sunday.
Until then, let’s look at some other security risks posed by belonging to Facebook.
Participation on Facebook could prove very dangerous to your future well-being. There is a reason that Facebook is aligned with both the CIA and the NSA. I have several credible sources tell me that all data posted on Facebook goes into series of cataloged files which culminates with each person being assigned a “Threat Matrix Score”. The mere existence of a Threat Matrix Score should send chills up and the collective spines of every American.
When, not if, martial law comes to America, this Threat Matrix Score, of which Facebook data is used to help compile an “enemies of the state” list, your future longevity could be seriously imperiled. It is too late for people like Steve Quayle, Doug and Joe Hagmann, John B. Wells and myself to avoid being placed on this list. However, it is not too late for the average American to limit their exposure by NOT posting and participating on Facebook. Facebook participation should come with a black box warning:“WARNING: The views expressed on Facebook can and will be used against you. Participation in Facebook could prove detrimental to the length of your life. All political dissident views are immediately reported to the CIA and the NSA. Risk of repeated exposure on Facebook could result in you and your family being hauled out of their homes at 3AM, separated from your family and sent to a re-education camp”.Before you dismiss this hypothetical black box warning as too much “tongue in cheek”, please consider that the NSA is presently extracting large amounts of Facebook data and I do not think they are compiling a Christmas card list.Facebook’s Welcome Is Wearing Off
Many of us in print and broadcast media are rethinking our association with Facebook. Several of our journalistic brothers and sisters have been censored and/or otherwise treated unprofessionally by this entity. Facebook has become replete with trolls who patrol the cyber corridors of this monolithic entity chastising and censoring whoever exposes the liberal, anti-human, depopulation agenda of the New World Order. Whether it is gun control, criticism of NWO puppet Obama or anything that the alleged grandson of David Rockefeller, Mark Zuckerberg, and his people disagree with, they will kick your Facebook account to the curb for daring to express a legitimate political opinion.Facebook’s Zuckerberg, The Self-Perceived Purveyor of Integrity and Morality
Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook emphasized three times in a single interview with David Kirkpatrick in his book, The Facebook Effect “You have one identity, and the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly. Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”
Who appointed Mr. Zuckerberg to be the moral police and the judge of integrity? It sounds like Zuckerberg can take his place with Soros, Gates, Turner, et al., and the rest of the global elite who think they have the right to treat humanity as their own personal property and view the masses as a disposable commodity.
Julian Assange Assessment of Facebook
Whistle blower, Julian Assange, once stated that “Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena. They have an interface that they have developed for US intelligence to use.”
Never before in American cyber-history do we see such an arrogant and agenda serving entity operating their propaganda so far in the open as we do with Facebook. This propaganda end of the New World Order is being blatantly exposed.
Facebook’s arrogance was on full display when highly respected journalist, Jon Rappoport was banned from sharing his articles on Facebook. In this instance of blatant censorship, Jon’s banned article was merely a review of certain aspects of American presidents ranging from Nixon to Obama. Like so many of us that understand history and can see the tyrannical path that Obama is taking us down, Rappoport identified Obama’s unconstitutional missteps. And for daring to tell the truth, Facebook banned Rappoport for the mere expression of a legitimate political opinion.
Readers may also recall when members of Infowars.com and the popular talk show host, Michael Rivero were banned in December of 2012, until the public outcry for Facebook to reinstate their respective accounts backed Facebook into a corner from which they acquiesced and reinstated the previously banned media figures.
Rules For Thee but Not For Me
Facebook does not apply their holier than thou attitude to their own corporate behavior. As Zuckerberg talks about rectifying Americans lack of integrity through timely Facebook exposure, Facebook fails to pay its own fair share of taxes as a result of tax loopholes and deductions.Facebook paid no income tax for the fiscal year 2012, despite reaping $1.1 billion in U.S. corporate profits. While Americans have just been subjected to higher taxes, billion-dollar corporations like Facebook, General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo have all been able to avoid paying any corporate income taxes, reports the Citizens for Tax Justice.Reddit Co-Founder Dissociates From Involvement With Facebook
In an interview with CNN, Reddit.com co-founder Alex Ohanian explains that he won’t be investing in Facebook, the largest technology IPO in the history of the Internet.
Facebook founder, Zuckerberg, had stated, at the time that Facebook first made their public offering, that he expected to make billions of dollars. Ohanian further stated that he would not be investing in Facebook in order to enrich Zuckerberg. Ohanian’s reasons for avoiding Facebook as an investment vehicle is tied to the fact that he strongly believes that Facebook’s stance in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA, is very dangerous to the viability of the internet. In other words, Reddit.com’s founder has clearly stated that Facebook is at the vanguard of Internet censorship.
I applaud Ohanian’s stance as it is clear that Ohanian respects free speech. It is safe to say that Facebook and CISPA are two birds of a feather as they both support blatant censorship regarding political views which differ from their own.
Tax evasion, legal or not, seems to be a trait of Facebook personnel, both past and present. Not only does Facebook not pay taxes while the rest of America is suffering under crushing tax increases, Zuckerberg’s former co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, renounced his U.S. citizenship back in August of 2012 in order to pay less tax. I guess that birds of a feather “Facebook” together.
Can it be said that Facebook is a shining example of duplicity and censorship? I think so and I welcome being banned by the monolith because soon Zuckerberg will learn the lesson the phrase “pride goeth before the fall.” I have long said that Facebook will face some very stiff competition and the millions who have been irritated by the trolls which send warning messages for sending simple personal messages could very well be looking for new jobs.
Technology is fleeting and Facebook could someday go the way of Myspace. I have long advocated that the average citizen needs to avoid the globalist corporate chain stores (e.g. Walmart) and shop locally as much as possible. I think the same could be said about social media sites as well. Why in the world are we posting personal information and our political views on an NSA controlled social media site such as Facebook? To do so, is suicide!
Conclusion
Although it is too late for me to avoid going on the “naughty list”, due to the fact that my work has been published in thousands of venues, I have come to the considered opinion that the average American is placing themselves on the equivalent of the East German Stasi political enemies hit list by posting political views on the NSA-controlled Facebook. My advice to all unpublished Americans is to immediately cease posting on Facebook, which is a direct conduit to being placed on the proverbial “RED LIST” and seek out alternatives which are not New World Order friendly.
Credit to Common Sense
The Lunatic Fringe
2-Page Photo of Buzz Aldrin in LIFE Magazine, 1969
(Click in Any Image to View Larger)
In this chapter I am going to make mention of additional types of photographic anomalies which appear in the images from the Apollo lunar missions. I will begin by revisiting the image above from the first Moon landing. In this image Buzz Aldrin, the 2nd man to walk on the Moon, is being photographed by Neil Armstrong. I previously emphasized the fact that Aldrin is being lit by a spotlight, for he is standing in a lighting hotspot while the ground around him tapers off into increasing darkness. Such an effect does not occur when a person is standing outside under the light of the Sun.
The main spotlight used to illuminate Aldrin is overhead and behind him. This is revealed by the shadow cast in front of the astronaut. It has been pointed out by many individuals who have examined the Apollo photos, that any surface facing away from the Sun should appear dark with very little detail discernible due to the lack of an atmosphere on the Moon. On Earth, our atmosphere scatters light, casting it in all directions. Scientists refer to this as Rayleigh scattering. The atmospheric scattering of light is the primary reason that shadowed areas on Earth remain significantly illuminated.
There is another factor involved in shadow brightness or darkness. This is the reflectivity of surface materials. If you sit under an umbrella that is erected on a white sandy beach, you will have more illumination than if you were to sit under an umbrella erected in a field of black loamy soil. Yet, in either case, due to the Rayleigh scattering effect of light in the Earth’s atmosphere, you would have sufficient illumination to read a book. The image below demonstrates the significant amount of light available under a large shaded gazebo.
Shade of a Gazebo
On the Moon, an area which lies in shadow would be significantly darker. The Moon has no atmosphere, and this fact alone causes shaded areas to have far less light. Added to this, the lunar surface, or regolith, is on average less reflective than the surface of the Earth. The reflective properties of the lunar regolith have been compared to that of asphalt.
Asphalt Road
The reflective characteristic of any object or material is referred to as its “albedo.” A perfectly reflective surface has an albedo of 1, whereas a surface that reflects no light has an albedo of 0. In our Solar System, the planet with the highest albedo is Venus. It is estimated at 0.75. The Earth by comparison has an albedo of 0.31, while the Moon has an albedo of 0.12. These numbers, however, represent the average reflectivity of an entire planet as viewed from space. A little more than half (55%) of the light of the Sun reflected back into space from the Earth comes from clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere. Without clouds, the Earth would have an albedo of approximately 0.15, which is still higher than the albedo of the Moon.*
[Source: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html]
On average, it is estimated that only 7% of the light striking the lunar surface is reflected back. The combination of the low reflective characteristics of the lunar surface, and the absence of an atmosphere to scatter light, results in shadows which are significantly darker on the Moon than they are on Earth. To demonstrate the pronounced blackness of shadows on the Moon, let us refer once more to a recent image from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Tycho Central Peak
This high-resolution composite image of a mountain peak inside of a massive crater demonstrates the darkness of shadows on the Moon. Note how there is NO visible detail of any objects which lie in the shadows of these mountainous peaks. I have placed a white box at the top center of the peak, to identify the area which appears in the following photographic image.
Notice the boulder in the center. The side facing the Sun is brightly illuminated, showing much detail. The shadowed area beyond the boulder is totally obscured. The boulder casts an intensely dark shadow. To the right of the boulder’s shadow, on the illuminated hillside, we can see numerous rocky outcroppings and smaller boulders. We can anticipate that such structures also exist in the area covered by the large boulder’s shadow. Yet we have no hint of anything in the shadow. The lack of reflected light due to an absence of an atmosphere, coupled with the low reflective properties of the lunar soil, results in great visual extremes on the Moon. There is a much sharper delineation between lighted surfaces and shadowed surfaces on the Moon when compared to the Earth.
Another aspect of lunar lighting should be kept in mind. Since, the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or absorb light, and no clouds to block light, the intensity of the Sun’s light striking the Moon’s surface is much greater than that on Earth. This is why the astronaut’s spacesuits were equipped with visors.
Apollo Astronaut’s Spacesuit
So intense is the Sun’s light on the lunar surface that the astronauts’ visors allowed only 10% of light in the visible range (.39 to .75 microns) to pass through the visor. 90% of the visible light was blocked. This information comes from NASA’s own documentation. It is found in a publication of the Langley Research Center titled Biotechnology, a 290 page document published in 1971.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UFbggkgoYgIC&sitesec=buy&source=gbs_atb
The visors also reportedly blocked 99% of UV (ultraviolet) light in the .25 to .39 micron range, and 95% of IR (infrared) light in the .75 to 2.5 micron range. Think about this for a moment. Due to the intense brightness of the lunar surface, the astronauts had to wear visors which blocked 90% of visible light. They were trained to only raise their visors when they moved into an area of shadow. There are, however, some Apollo photos which show the astronauts with raised visors while standing in sunlight on the moon’s surface. This is further evidence that the images were staged, for the brilliant light should have been hard to bear.
AS17-146-22296, Astronaut Jack Schmitt with Visor Raised
Consider what effect this brilliant sunlight would have on film. Without a filter, film would be rapidly saturated with light and appear washed out. With a filter, the extreme difference between light and shadow on the Moon would cause shadows to appear impenetrable when the camera was properly adjusted to photograph objects under intense sunlight. It was this very line of reasoning which NASA used to explain why no stars appear in the lunar sky. They say the cameras were set-up for daytime photography, so dimly illuminated objects, such as stars in the sky, did not show up at all. The entire sky appeared as a solid black expanse. If this is true, then the same thing would also occur when the astronauts were taking photos of shadowed objects on the surface of the Moon. Objects illuminated directly by the Sun should appear visible, while everything in shadow should be dark, indistinct, and lacking detail.
The contrast between illuminated and shaded areas on the Moon is much greater than light and shadow on Earth, and it should appear this way in photos. NASA, after all, did not use any specialty film which would allow for a wider range of light exposures such as one would find on the Moon. They used the same Kodak Ektachrome film sold to photographers for use on Earth.
If we were to step into the shade of a building on a sunny day on Earth, there would be a noticeable decrease in light, but we could still see detail quite well. However, on the Moon, if you did the same thing it would be like stepping into the darkness of night. There is therefore no plausible reason that the front of Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit should be so visible, and the detail so clear. The Sun in all its lunar brilliance is at his back, and the front of his spacesuit is in shadow. We should be able to discern no detail on the shadowed side of Buzz Aldrin. He should appear as a silhouette against a bright backdrop.
Silhouette
Without any front lighting source, and lacking the light scattering properties of the Earth’s atmosphere, all objects lying in shadow on the Moon should appear dark. NASA admits this themselves. On one of their websites the following statements are found.
Without the blue sky, your shadow would be eerily dark, like a piece of night following you around. Weird. Yet that's exactly how it is on the Moon.
To visualize the experience of Apollo astronauts, imagine the sky turning completely and utterly black while the sun continues to glare. Your silhouette darkens, telling you "you're not on Earth anymore."
Shadows were one of the first things Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong mentioned when he stepped onto the surface of the moon. "It's quite dark here in the shadow [of the lunar module] and a little hard for me to see that I have good footing," he radioed to Earth...
Above: Blinding sunshine, dark shadows and the lunar lander Antares. From the book FULL MOON by Michael Light, Alfred A. Knopf ©1999.
Given plenty of time to adapt, an astronaut could see almost anywhere.
(Author’s Note: Cameras, unlike people, don’t have plenty of time to adapt.)
Almost. Consider the experience of Apollo 14 astronauts Al Shepard and Ed Mitchell:
They had just landed at Fra Mauro and were busily unloading the lunar module. Out came the ALSEP, a group of experiments bolted to a pallet. Items on the pallet were held down by "Boyd bolts," each bolt recessed in a sleeve used to guide the Universal Handling Tool, a sort of astronaut's wrench. Shepard would insert the tool and give it a twist to release the bolt--simple, except that the sleeves quickly filled with moondust. The tool wouldn't go all the way in.
The sleeve made its own little shadow, so "Al was looking at it, trying to see inside. And he couldn't get the tool in and couldn't get it released--and he couldn't see it," recalls Mitchell.
"Remember," adds Mitchell, "on the lunar surface there's no air to refract light--so unless you've got direct sunlight, there's no way in hell you can see anything. It was just pitch black. That's an amazing phenomenon on an airless planet..."
Shadows could also be mischievous:
Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Al Bean landed in the Ocean of Storms only about 600 yards from Surveyor 3, a robotic spacecraft sent by NASA to the moon three years earlier. A key goal of the Apollo 12 mission was to visit Surveyor 3, to retrieve its TV camera, and to see how well the craft had endured the harsh lunar environment. Surveyor 3 sat in a shallow crater where Conrad and Bean could easily get at it--or so mission planners thought.
The astronauts could see Surveyor 3 from their lunar module Intrepid. "I remember the first time I looked at it," recalls Bean. "I thought it was on a slope of 40 degrees. How are we going to get down there? I remember us talking about it in the cabin, about having to use ropes."
But "it turned out [the ground] was real flat," rejoined Conrad.
What happened? When Conrad and Bean landed, the sun was low in the sky. The top of Surveyor 3 was sunlit, while the bottom was in deep darkness. "I was fooled," says Bean, "because, on Earth, if something is sunny on one side and very dark on the other, it has to be on a tremendous slope." In the end, they walked down a gentle 10 degree incline to Surveyor 3--no ropes required.
[Source: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/03jan_moonshadows/]
It seems that NASA began to get their story straight on the extremes of shadow and light on the Moon as the Apollo missions progressed. This was likely due to questions or criticisms they received regarding some of the photos from early Moon landings. NASA completely bungled things on the Apollo 11 mission. The image below shows Buzz Aldrin exiting the Lunar Module. The Sun appears on the far side. The shadows on the ground reveal that the door Aldrin is exiting is almost 180 degrees opposite the Sun. The entire side of the Lunar Module that is in the image should be in darkness with little or no detail visible. The only way to account for this image is that it was filmed on Earth where Rayleigh scattering occurs, and a secondary light source was used to illuminate the side of the Lunar Module opposite the Sun.
This conclusion is further supported by additional images which show Aldrin exiting the Lunar Module. The following image, designated AS11-40-5866, is one of the most frequently cited examples of NASA having faked the Apollo Moon landings. Aside from the remarkable clarity of detail on what is the shadow side of the Lunar Module, there is a visible lighting hot spot on the heel of Buzz Aldrin’s right boot. The heel of the boot is facing away from the Sun, and the light reflection can only be accounted for through the use of a light source pointed toward the side of the Lunar Module the astronaut is descending.
AS11-40-5866
Buzz Aldrin’s Boot
Look at the images of Buzz Aldrin exiting the Lunar Module above. Compare what you see to the words of Neil Armstrong who descended the same ladder just moments earlier.
It's quite dark here in the shadow [of the lunar module] and a little hard for me to see that I have good footing.
Does it look hard for you to see in the shadowed side of the Lunar Lander? Not at all. There is even a lighting hot spot on Buzz Aldrin’s heel. If shadows are “eerily dark... like a piece of night following you around,” then why is the shadow side of the Lunar Lander so well lit? Astronaut Ed Mitchell stated, “unless you've got direct sunlight, there's no way in hell you can see anything,” yet there was no direct sunlight on the back side of the Lunar Lander that Aldrin and Armstrong descended. Why was it lit up so well? Those who are engaged in refuting the evidence of the Moon missions having been faked, usually argue that the back of the Lunar Module was visible due to the reflection of sunlight off of the lunar surface. Since the lunar surface’s reflectivity is similar to that of asphalt, and the camera was adjusted to take images in intensely bright sunlight, not shadow, this explanation does not wash.
There is another explanation, however. These images were not photographed on the Moon. They were photographed in a staged environment utilizing multiple light sources here on Earth.
Those who have spent time researching the fakery of the Apollo Moon missions have likely come across the writings and videos of Richard Hoagland. Hoagland was a science advisor to CBS during the years of the Apollo Missions and appeared with Walter Cronkite on some of the network’s broadcasts. Prior to this he was a Curator of Astronomy and Space Science at the Springfield Science Museum, 1964–1967, and Assistant Director at the Gengras Science Center in West Hartford, Connecticut, 1967-1968. Hoagland is the author of two books: The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever (1987), and Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA (2007, revised 2009). The latter book was ranked 21st on The New York Times Best Seller list for paperback nonfiction about a month after its release.
In his books, Richard Hoagland proposes that NASA is covering up evidence of ancient alien civilizations which existed on Mars and the Moon. In Dark Mission, Hoagland uses computers and graphics software which was unavailable during the years of the Apollo missions, to examine the lunar photography supplied by NASA from the Surveyor and Apollo Missions. By altering the lighting, contrast and other visual elements of the NASA photographs, Hoagland was able to detect patterns rising from the lunar surface. These geometric patterns appear in the black areas which form the backdrop of the lunar photos, ostensibly being the sky just above the surface of the Moon.
Surveyor 6 Photo Taken One Hour After Sunset, November 24, 1967
Hoagland contends that this image of the lunar horizon, which he has enhanced with graphics software, reveals the remnants of an immense crystalline dome which ancient planetary travelers built to cover their cities. He estimates that this crystal dome was 6-7 miles high. Such an interpretation of this image seems plausible to Hoagland, for he is basing his conclusions on the assumption that NASA actually landed Surveyor robotic craft on the Moon, and later put men on the moon. He is consequently accepting at face value that what he is looking at is a genuine photograph taken from the Moon’s surface, in full scale, which would cause the geometric patterns in the background to be immense.
However, a far more plausible explanation is forthcoming. This explanation asserts that NASA used one of the scale mock-ups of the lunar surface, such as the ones they built at Langley Research Center, and they used a fabric backdrop, possibly something like 3M’s Scotchlite fabric, placed behind the model of the moon. Hoagland’s photographic enhancements are bringing into view the pattern of the fabric backdrop, not some ancient alien crystal dome that was erected on the Moon.
AS14-66-9301
The image above, appears in Dark Mission, as well as on Hoagland’s website, http://www.enterprisemission.com/. It is an enhancement of a photo from the Apollo 14 mission showing astronaut Ed Mitchell on the lunar surface. By varying the lighting and contrast, Hoagland was able to detect a geometric pattern above the horizon of the Moon. Following is a further enhancement of this same NASA image.
Hoagland once again interpreted this as evidence of an immense crystalline dome structure rising from the lunar surface. Interestingly, in the video edition of Dark Mission, at the 1:28:12 mark, the author states, “What we are seeing is a gridwork of light reflecting material above the Moon.” Absolutely!
https://youtu.be/ptx7bkGCnhM?t=1h28m
Hoagland has however, misidentified the “gridwork of light reflecting material.” It is not a 7 mile high alien crystal dome. Rather, it is panels of Scotchlite reflective material stitched together to use in a front screen projection system at a studio on Earth created to simulate the lunar surface. If this were the actual moon, the scale of the geographic shapes in the background would certainly imply there was a structure many miles high. However, if this is a studio lot on earth, the scale is revealed to be no more than about 30 feet high.
Richard Hoagland, 1994
Hoagland’s Video was recorded at Ohio State University in 1994. During his presentation, Hoagland states, “I was afraid that someone would call the university and say that a lunatic was coming on stage here tonight.” The word “lunatic” originated from the belief that changes in the lunar phase caused periodic insanity. A mentally disturbed person might be referred to as “moon-struck.” Although I would not declare Richard Hoagland to be a lunatic, there is a certain lunacy to his theories. It is believed that President Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1913 autobiography, was the first to use the expression “lunatic fringe.”
Then, among the wise and high-minded people who in self-respecting and genuine fashion strive earnestly for peace, there are foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it -- the men who form the lunatic fringe in all reform movements.
[Teddy Roosevelt]
In a sense, Richard Hoagland is a member of the lunatic fringe of those who seek to bring to light the deceptions of America’s space agency. He brings discredit to the subject by positing incredible theories of ancient extraterrestrial civilizations on the moon. Even while contending that NASA is engaged in a cover-up that centers on the Apollo Moon missions, he brings into disrepute the very notion of a deception by associating it with theories that are even more fanciful than the tales NASA would have us to believe.
Hoagland has in one sense provided a service by bringing to light the unusual character of the lunar backdrops in the photographs supplied by NASA. At the same time, he leads men away from the truth by being a believer in the government deception that asserts men rode rockets to the Moon, walked on its surface, planted flags, took photos, golfed, and then returned safely back to Earth to tell the story of their adventures.
It remains therefore, to explain these mysterious backdrops. That subject will be the focus of our next chapter.
Credit to Joseph Herrin
Government seeks 'authority to determine what is sin'
In its Supreme Court battle over Obamacare’s abortion-pill mandate, the government wants to “determine what is in fact a sin,” contends a religious-rights legal group.
The high court has agreed to hear the case of the Denver-based Little Sisters of the Poor nuns, who refused to comply with the requirement that the insurance policies for their employees cover abortion pills.
The nuns have refused to sign over the responsibility to their insurance company, arguing it also would be a violation of their faith to facilitate someone else committing a sin.
Now a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of dozens of clients charges the government is seeking to become the arbiter of religious beliefs.
The group’s chief counsel, Richard Thompson, called the mandate “a monumental attack on religious liberty.”
“If this appeal is lost, the government becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin,” he said.
From the past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is available some critically important advice, “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare.”
The brief argues that the neither the government nor the lawyers on the Supreme Court bench “can determine whether an act does or does not violate a person’s religious beliefs.”
“Rather, the Supreme Court must accept the non-profits’ assertions that the notification requirement is indeed against their religion.”
To accept otherwise, the brief says, “is to supplant the church and the Bible with the government, allowing the Supreme Court and the government to interpret [tenets] of faith.
“This slippery slope would subject all religious exercise to the whim of the government’s approval.”
The brief points out that it’s already been decided that the fines for noncompliance are a substantial burden, leaving essentially the question of “whether compliance is actually against the petitioners’ religion.”
“This is something that is for petitioners to determine, not the court,” the Thomas More Law Center says.
“The court is not the arbiter of sacred Scripture and cannot determine whether the notification form and letter are attenuated enough from the provision of contraceptives that they do not substantially burden petitioners’ religion,” the brief says. “Delving into this inquiry requires the court to interpret petitioners’ religious beliefs on the morality of the different levels of complicity with sin.
“Therefore, the court can only determine whether petitioners are being compelled to do something that violates their faith – here, filling out the notification form or writing a notification letter to HHS, both of which trigger the dissemination of contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees in connection with their employee health plans.”
The brief point out that a woman’s right to get contraceptives is not unlimited.
“This does not mean they have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients. Moreover, this right certainly does not mean that a person has the right to obtain contraceptives and abortifacients – either directly or indirectly – from their employer at the expense of pillaging the employer’s religious liberty,” the brief states.
The Little Sisters charge the government is forcing them to violate their faith by giving them a choice between providing contraceptives and abortion pills directly or ordering them to sign over their responsibility to someone else.
“These notification requirements trigger the non-profits’ insurers to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to the women in the non-profits’ health plans. This notification requirement makes the non profits complicit in the provision of a service that they find sinful, thereby causing them to sin themselves,” the brief explains.
The law center argues there should not even be a case.
“The government already subsidizes contraceptives and abortifacients through its programs and could find ways to expand or increase the efficacy of those existing programs,” the brief says.
“The government could offer grants, go directly to insurers, or engage in countless other options that do not involve the cooperation of petitioners.”
Further, providing “free contraceptives and abortifacients” is not a compelling government interest, the law center argues, quoting the Supreme Court itself.
“The many exemptions already provided for under the regulations necessarily destroy any argument that the HHS mandate serves a compelling interest.”
It was the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that took on the authority of determining what is sin.
From the past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is available some critically important advice, “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare.”
Another recent brief challenged: “Perhaps the apex among a host of acts of governmental arrogance in this case was displayed not by HHS, but when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit acted as if it had ecclesiastical powers of absolution, having decreed that by just signing a paper, Little Sisters would not be ‘morally complicit in providing contraceptive coverage.'”
The brief said one would expect that “on the issue of who the God of Heaven and Earth will hold ‘morally complicit,’ it would be the Little Sisters which would have the greater expertise than a federal judge.”
Credit to WND
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/government-seeks-authority-to-determine-what-is-sin/#fegI2TrQwIeJvfoF.99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)