As stated before - the truth is very elusive in these days headed into the Tribulation. Expect more and more of the same in the coming days.
Two days after WND uncovered a U.S. State Department plan to buy hundreds of pounds of plastic explosives and thousands of containers of liquid explosives, the agency – which refuses to comment on the discovery – awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts for the blasting supplies.
The explosives, including hundreds of pounds of C4, originally were to be shipped to Sterling, Virginia, home to the Diplomatic Pouch and Mail Unit, or DPM/U. The unit is tasked with sending secure pouches and crates to U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, as previously reported.
The original contracting documents still mention the DPM/U shipping destination and list a State Department contracting office address in Dun Loring, Virginia, site of a diplomatic-security field office.
But the new contract awards suddenly identify the contracting office address as 1701 N. Ft. Myer Dr., Arlington, Virginia – headquarters of the Office of Security Management within the State Department Construction, Facility and Security Management Directorate.
The directorate is a division of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, or OBO, whose mission is to provide “safe, secure, and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff as they work to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives.”
Omni will get $320,000 via Contract Award No. 10524H1636 to provide State with 450 pounds of C4 M112 explosives, nearly 2,600 containers of liquid and aluminum-powder explosives, 188 feet of “linear-shaped charges” and more than 8,000 blasting caps and other equipment. The award satisfies Solicitation No. FY14-GC-273.
State will pay Omni an additional $30,000 via Contract Award No. 10524H0257 for another 225 pounds of C4 plastic explosives, five pounds of C2 “sheet explosives” and 144 bottles of high-energy liquid explosives.
Within days of awarding the contracts for the explosives, which are to be delivered to the Sterling diplomatic facility, the Office of Logistics Management in State’s Bureau of Administration revealed its need for contractors “to provide technical, management, and labor necessary for Diplomatic Pouch and Mail Support Services at various Department of State Facilities in the Metro DC area.”
The ultimate destination for the explosives remains shrouded in secrecy, as State has failed to explain its intentions for the destructive materials.
Indeed, WND’s entreaties to State’s Office of Press Relations initially were met with laughter.
That inquiry was then stonewalled by a State spokesperson’s purported puzzlement about what WND wanted to know about the explosives.
Among other questions, State was asked to explain how the blasting equipment fits with its mission to “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.”
State has not responded, despite putting in writing this and other questions, such as: “For what purpose is the department making these purchases? How – and where and by whom – will these explosives be used?”
Question: why exactly does the USDA need these weapons?
The American government has been arming itself to the teeth in recent years, and the recent Bundy Ranch dispute with the Bureau of Land Management has once again spotlighted the fact that the U.S. has over 40 federal agencies that control armed, paramilitary style units now.
According to Watchdog.org, the depth of the U.S. government’s arms race should shock people:
It may come as a surprise to many U.S. taxpayers, but a slew of federal agencies — some whose responsibilities seem to have little to do with combating crime — carry active law enforcement operations.
Here’s a partial list:
- The U.S. Department of Education
- The Bureau of Land Management (200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 70 special agents)
- The U.S. Department of the Interior
- The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (with an armed uniformed division of 1.000)
- The National Park Service (made up of NPS protection park rangers and U.S. Park Police officers that operate independently)
- The Environmental Protection Agency (200 special agents)
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (224 special agents)
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
That’s right, NOAA — the folks who forecast the weather, monitor the atmosphere and keep tabs on the oceans and waterways — has its own law enforcement division. It has a budget of $65 million and consists of 191 employees, including 96 special agents and 28 enforcement officers who carry weapons.
A more complete list of our nation’s armed agencies can be found here.
Americans have sat back and watched as a multitude of agencies have purchased thousands upon thousands of weapons and over a billion rounds of ammo. Agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (over a billion rounds, or several thousand rounds per agent per year), the Social Security Administration (174,000 rounds), and the Internal Revenue Service (AR-15s for “standoff capability”). Earlier this year, even the USPS and the NOAA were buying up rounds. What do they need all that for?
Again, why does the USDA need these weapons? FedBizOpps does not say, of course.
Then again, maybe a better question might be: why do all these agencies need to be armed in the first place? Does the U.S. Department of Education really need its own paramilitary unit? For what?
[See video clip in link]
The world’s most advanced ionospheric research facility has in its lifetime faced allegations of being a ‘military death beam’, a weapon of weather control and even a top-secret mind-control project. Now, the US government’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is threatened with closure.
HAARP, near Gakona, Alaska, comprises radio transmitters and antennas that are used to heat up the ionosphere — the uppermost region of the atmosphere — creating a laboratory in the sky for scientists.The facility has been used to produce an artificial aurora and to study how charged particles behave in the ionosphere, at a total cost of more than $250 million to build and operate.
Its bizarre backstory rivals that of a blockbuster Hollywood film. A powerful US senator from Alaska, Republican Ted Stevens, helped win approval for the facility in the early 1990s. But to justify HAARP’s price, the Pentagon had to dream up exotic military applications, sparking conspiracy theories.
In 2008, Stevens was voted out of office barely a week after being convicted of corruption (the conviction was tossed out in 2009 amid allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and Stevens died in a plane crash the following year). He was replaced by Democrat Mark Begich, whose brother has been an outspoken advocate for the idea that HAARP is a secret military weapons project.
Kristen Meghan, Ex-Military, former Air Force Sr. Industrial Hygienist/Environmental Specialist. Her job was Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 4BOX1, Bio-environmental Engineer. Kristen gave a ground breaking presentation of what she had discovered about Geoengineering / Chemtrails while serving her Country.
The lack of congressional action on critical infrastructure legislation is hampering national preparation for a natural or man-made electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, event that could kill 90 percent of the U.S. population due to starvation, disease and societal collapse, charges an expert on the threat.
Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the congressional advisory Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, contends that the failure to pass the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, or CIPA, is preventing action at the federal, state and local levels to protect the nation from a catastrophic EMP event.
Pry has warned that a natural or nuclear EMP event could black out the national electric grid for months or years and collapse all of the other critical infrastructures essential to sustain a modern society and the lives of 310 million Americans.
The critical infrastructures include communications, transportation, banking, finance, food, water and emergency services.
Pry calls passage of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act to create a new National Planning Scenario focused on the EMP threat “urgently necessary.”
“As the National Planning Scenarios are the basis for all federal, state and local emergency planning, training and resource allocation, an EMP National Planning Scenario would immediately and significantly improve national preparedness for an EMP catastrophe,” he said.
Pry is referring to some 15 National Planning Scenarios maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, each of which outline procedures to act in the event of various catastrophes, such as flooding, hurricanes and even terrorism.
However, EMP is not one of the 15 National Planning Scenarios.
Pry pointed out that the federal government, particularly the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, has known about the EMP threat for more than 50 years.
Yet, the EMP threat has only come to the attention of most policymakers and the public relatively recently.
Pry said the threat of an EMP event is increasing, whether from a natural geomagnetic superstorm or a high-altitude nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states, such as North Korea, which during the nuclear crisis in 2013.
Pry and other experts have pointed out that the sun is going through its most intense solar storm maximum, which occurs every 11 years, spewing solar flares from its surface into space. Some of these flares can be from 14 to 20 times the size of the Earth.
If there is a direct hit on earth by one of these flares, for example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has projected that the damage to the U.S. alone would be more than $2 trillion in the first year. It would affect some 90 percent of the U.S. population, and the nation would take anywhere from four to 10 years to recover, if ever.
The walls are closing in on status of equality of Jews in America. Anti-Semites and Islamic supremacists have been pursuing their bigoted agenda of hate under the guise of the invented Palestinian narrative. After years of battering and bullying, they have reached a tipping point. A terrible, horrible tipping point.
The targeting and mistreatment of Jews on the UCLA campus has grown increasingly virulent – while the university's administration and the mainstream media yawn. One particular Jewish student at UCLA, Avinoam Baral, is being vilified and targeted incessantly by Muslim groups. Muslim Brotherhood groups, so named in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation's history, are demanding that Jewish students sign Nuremberg-like oaths not to associate with Jewish groups, in their continuing jihad against the Jews.
Iran nuclear talks stalled Friday, casting a shadow on earlier advances and denting hopes that Tehran and six world powers will meet a July 20 target date for a deal meant to curb Iran’s atomic program while ending sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi acknowledged the meeting made “no progress” in its ambitious goal of starting to draft an agreement meant to ease a decade of Western distrust about Tehran’s nuclear agenda in exchange for sanctions relief.
A senior US official — who demanded anonymity under US briefing rules — said there was “great difficulty” in trying to move toward common positions and spoke of “significant” differences. Both Araqchi and the official said further meetings were planned in June, but no dates were announced.
The talks are being closely watched by Israel for signs that Tehran is using them as a cover while trying to reach the ability to make a nuclear weapon — something the Jewish state has vowed to prevent by any means, including force.
Araqchi said that differences remained on more than a dozen issues and a Western official with detailed knowledge of the talks said that enrichment was among the most divisive topics.
The official declined to go into the specifics of what separated the two sides on enrichment and demanded anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the confidential talks.
The Democrats and their media acolytes who are pushing back against a full investigation of the Benghazi scandal are in full circle the wagons mode. They are trying to make investigating this scandal into some sort of late night joke against Republicans, but instead are looking more desperate by the day.
Many Americans do not believe the Obama administration’s account of what happened leading up to and during the September 11, 2012 attack. They smell a cover up. According to a Rasmussen poll earlier this month, 59 percent feel it is unlikely the administration has revealed all of the details surrounding the tragic attack.
Distrust of the Obama administration was stoked by the recent revelation of an e-mail written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes showing White House involvement in concocting the bogus anti-Muslim video explanation for the killings. The purpose of this intervention by the White House was to prepare then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for her Sunday TV show appearances on September 16, 2012, with the goal of pushing the video narrative even though senior officials at the State Department and intelligence personnel on the ground knew early on that a pre-meditated terrorist attack was the real cause.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a fool of himself yet again when he tried to claim with a straight face that the Rhodes e-mail had nothing to do with Benghazi. It’s all old news anyway, he intoned.
The mother of one of the Americans murdered in Benghazi by the jihadists, Sean Smith, refuses to accept such cold indifference. She wants the truth: “How can Hillary sit up there and say ‘What difference does it make,’ when she is the person that made the difference? She is the one that would not allow any security there; she is the one that was responsible.”
They may provide answers to questions that the select committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, in a turn-about, posed to reporters during a press conference when he asked them if they had been doing their jobs:
•Can you tell me why [Ambassador] Chris Stevens was in Benghazi that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?
•Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed?
•Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?
•Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?
•Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that?
•Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows?
•Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?
•Do you know where we got from no evidence on that, to that being the official position of the administration?”
Much of the mainstream media could not care less about the truth. They act like an extension of the Obama White House. And they are auditioning for that same part in helping Hillary Clinton fend off embarrassing questions that might interfere with her quest for the White House in 2016.
Chuck Todd of NBC News, for example, said on May 13th that “all the questions have been answered. There’s just some people that don’t like the answers.” Then perhaps NBC News will enlighten us on the answers to Rep. Gowdy’s questions above.
Next month, if all goes according to plan, the Environmental Protection Agency will launch the most serious assault on American business since the 1970's. New regulatiosn governing the release of Carbon Dioxide will hit every corner of the economy, causing your electric bill to skyrocket (as promised by candidate Obama) and adding billions in costs to manufacturers and other businesses that generate CO2.
The move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting it away from coal-burning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind. While this is the big move environmentalists have been yearning for, it also has major political implications in November for a president already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on Coal,” and promises to be an election issue in energy-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
The EPA’s proposed rule is aimed at scaling back carbon emissions from existing power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases. It’s scheduled for a public rollout June 2, after months of efforts by the administration to publicize the mounting scientific evidence that rising seas, melting glaciers and worsening storms pose a danger to human society.
Also, don't these people read what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is saying? There is no rise in sea level. Storms are no worse now than they were decades ago. The earth hasn't warmed in 17 years. If you're going to justify this action based on "climate change," why ignore the one internationalgroup of scientists who are charged by the UN to investigate?
The reason is that this is not about saving the earth. It is about control. Even if you accept the theory of global warming, there is no way you can prove that the measures being ordered by the EPA would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by one, single molecule. That's because countries like China, who are building a coal burning electric plant every month - are not subject to any mandated reduction in CO2 emissions. Ditto for India. For every molecule of carbon dioxide we don't put into the atmosphere, someone else will do it for us.
In short, the rationale for burdening Americans with these new regs is non existent.
No comments:
Post a Comment