Debunked: Executive Order 13575 - Establishment of the White House Rural Council

Joe, I am suspicious about your own research. I think you actually WANT to believe in this. There is no talking down a person with such a delusion. They are lost, even to themselves. I hope that isn't you.

What you see doesn't mimic what the geoengineers PROPOSE COULD BE DONE, and no they do NOT "plan on doing" anything.

For one,the planes you see are at commercial flight levels. Geoengineering wouldn't work at that low of an altitude. Geoengineering is about TWICE that altitude.
It's unlikely you would see anything if geoengineering took place, and the planes would be almost half the size visually of what you see because of the altitude.
If you've done any flight tracking you've developed a pretty good idea of ow large the planes appear at 30,000 feet. So, imagine what they would look like twice as high. That is what geoengineering would look like, and it is quite likely that the trail of it, if any existed, would be similarly smaller.
I don't think there is agreement in the literature regarding the altitude that would be necessary . . . for example this paper lists altitudes between 33,000 and 49,000 feet . . . http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-an...fall-2009/projects/MIT1_018JF09_sw_paper4.pdf



The Unintended Consequences of Sulfate Aerosols in the Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
11/29/2009

." Aerosols have a much longer residence time in the stratosphere than they do in the troposphere. A residence time of several years as opposed to several days means that fewer aerosols need to be introduced into the stratosphere in order to maintain the climatic effects (Rasch et al., 2008). The characteristics of the stratosphere lead to the dispersion of the aerosols over an area larger than the launch site, causing a global, rather than local, effect, an important aspect of geoengineering. Figure 2 shows the location of the stratosphere, troposphere and the tropopause, the layer separating the two. Any sulfate aerosol geoengineering scheme would aim to launch aerosols into the lower stratosphere, between 10 and 15km above the surface of the Earth." (Which is approximately 33,000 to 49,000 feet)
Content from External Source
Sulfuric Acid Deposition from Stratospheric Geoengineering with Sulfate Aerosols

Ben Kravitz1, Alan Robock1, Luke Oman2, Georgiy Stenchikov1, and Allison B. Marquardt


1Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 2Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland


SULFURIC ACID DEPOSITION FROM GEOENGINEERING


Journal of Geophysical Research, in press February, 2009
Revised May, 2009


http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Data sources/Robock aciddeposition.pdf


Page 6


In addition, we used two ensembles, each with three members of 20-year climate simulations, covering the same time period. One involved daily injections of SO2 into the tropical lower stratosphere (longitude 120°E, latitude 0°, 16-23 km altitude) for a total of 5 Tg per year in addition to the forcing prescribed by the A1B scenario, and one involved daily injections of SO2 into the Arctic lower stratosphere (longitude 120°E, latitude 68°N, 10-15 km altitude) for a total of 3 Tg per year in addition to the forcing prescribed by the A1B scenario.



Content from External Source
 
No I actuallly enjoy It . the more info the better . I wish I could believe is all a conspiracy . When you read what the geoengineers plan on doing and it mimics exactly what you see . then to make us more suspicious you have Mick the owner of this site actually working or corresponding with the geoengineers themselves . Quite interesting . Conspiracy's need to be proven either real or false . So give me facts . Then I will do my own research .

I'm not "working" with any climate scientists (the people who sometimes do research into geoengineering). I have posted ten times on the Geoengineering Google Group, all quite openly, you can search the group to see my posts:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/geoengineering/mick$20west|sort:date
 
Of course they are not in agreement. All social hierarchies you can delineate will have internal competitions, internal conflicts, and variations in political and moral beliefs across the individual members; the five New York mafia families, Xi Jinping's new administration, Africans, or my daughter's college sorority.

They do however share the same goal. Like all animals human beings want to dominate and exploit the resources around them. The most valuable resource on this planet is not land or gold, it's people.

The New World Order is merely the latest, most innovative iteration of this seven thousand year-old resource management endeavor.

Mick, I groan when someone insists I watch an online video, but this short video will add to your understanding of The Big Picture. I beg you to watch it...



Well, since you begged, I watched it.

It says that we are not like animals in that we can be threatened with future punishment, we are enslaved by the ruling classes into "tax farms" run on the "mafia model" (indirect de-facto ownership through coercion) , where our freedoms are an illusion, schools only exist to indoctrinate useful young workers, global conflicts are manufactured to keep us in line, and that all we have to do is "wake up". But we it also says we have more freedoms than at any time in history, because the elite figured out we work better that way.

I'm not clear though exactly what freedoms are denied me. Is is just the freedom not to pay income tax, or is there something else?

And what happens when enough people wake up? What will the world look like?
 
I don't think there is agreement in the literature regarding the altitude that would be necessary . . . for example this paper lists altitudes between 33,000 and 49,000 feet . . . http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-an...fall-2009/projects/MIT1_018JF09_sw_paper4.pdf

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Data sources/Robock aciddeposition.pdf
No. You are wrong. Robock wrote his paper to show how lower startospheric geoengineering would have repercussions, and he used that altitude not because it would be effective, but because that is the limit of the aircraft available.
Neither of your links speaks to effectiveness at those altitudes. Both only speak of what would happen if sulfur was placed in the lower stratosphere. They were studies about the fallout and acid rain if such a path were chosen, which was considerable when the model put sulfur in the lower stratosphere. It falls out way too fast to be effective and increases acid rain.
No feasible geoengineering would be done at altitudes less than 18 Km, or 60,000 feet, just like Pinatubo did.
Don't believe me, ask Robock or Keith yourself and see what they say, then report back.
 
Joe, I am suspicious about your own research. I think you actually WANT to believe in this. There is no talking down a person with such a delusion. They are lost, even to themselves. I hope that isn't you.

What you see doesn't mimic what the geoengineers PROPOSE COULD BE DONE, and no they do NOT "plan on doing" anything.

For one,the planes you see are at commercial flight levels. Geoengineering wouldn't work at that low of an altitude. Geoengineering is about TWICE that altitude.
It's unlikely you would see anything if geoengineering took place, and the planes would be almost half the size visually of what you see because of the altitude.
If you've done any flight tracking you've developed a pretty good idea of ow large the planes appear at 30,000 feet. So, imagine what they would look like twice as high. That is what geoengineering would look like, and it is quite likely that the trail of it, if any existed, would be similarly smaller.
No actually lately they are much higher . I can easily spot the commercial flights they are much lower . many of them look like they are twice as high . Yea just like iron fertilization ? :)
 
I'm not "working" with any climate scientists (the people who sometimes do research into geoengineering). I have posted ten times on the Geoengineering Google Group, all quite openly, you can search the group to see my posts:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/geoengineering/mick$20west%7Csort:date
Yes I know Iv read them all . Just saying it seems suspicious . plus they also refer to contrail science . Those are the same guys that think some sort of climate doomsday will come unless they save us all . Seems like they are the conspiracy guys not scientist , I think they all need a vacation or maybe a real job . like Mc Donalds or something :) . Scientist working for Bill Gates and Federal grant money .
 
Yes I know Iv read them all . Just saying it seems suspicious . plus they also refer to contrail science . Those are the same guys that think some sort of climate doomsday will come unless they save us all . Seems like they are the conspiracy guys not scientist , I think they all need a vacation or maybe a real job . like Mc Donalds or something :) . Scientist working for Bill Gates and Federal grant money .

Surely though if Contrail Science were a correct and useful way of refuting the chemtrail theories, then it would make sense for them to refer to it?

You should read more of the group. Very few of them actually advocate any form of geoengineering. Most of them are strongly opposed to it, and would prefer carbon remediation measures.
 
No actually lately they are much higher . I can easily spot the commercial flights they are much lower . many of them look like they are twice as high . Yea just like iron fertilization ? :)

Easy to spot? Maybe you could take a photo of some "high" and "low" planes with the exact same zoom setting? Then check they are actually the same sized plane.

Maybe what you think of as "twice as high" is actually "half as big"?
 
Surely though if Contrail Science were a correct and useful way of refuting the chemtrail theories, then it would make sense for them to refer to it?

You should read more of the group. Very few of them actually advocate any form of geoengineering. Most of them are strongly opposed to it, and would prefer carbon remediation measures.
yes i noticed that Some are . Maybe most are . I joined google groups geoengineering a while back so I do receive many emails daily. I agree with you because I do not have conclusive evidence it still remains a conspiracy. Makes it more interesting because Im not convinced either way . Yet .
 
Easy to spot? Maybe you could take a photo of some "high" and "low" planes with the exact same zoom setting? Then check they are actually the same sized plane.

Maybe what you think of as "twice as high" is actually "half as big"?
Oh so the low ones are 747s and he high ones are Piper cubs ? :) Actually my friend who is ex airforce told me when i pointed out a high altitude jet that it was in fact military and they usually fly at a higher altitude . Im just south of Patrick AFB and east of a practice bombing range Mc Dill AFB . Lets say they are just contrails that linger and spread out and block the sun . Isnt that geoengineering or SRM ? Just not done on purpose but a side effect of air travel ?
 
Oh so the low ones are 747s and he high ones are Piper cubs ? :) Actually my friend who is ex airforce told me when i pointed out a high altitude jet that it was in fact military and they usually fly at a higher altitude . Im just south of Patrick AFB and east of a practice bombing range Mc Dill AFB . Lets say they are just contrails that linger and spread out and block the sun . Isnt that geoengineering or SRM ? Just not done on purpose but a side effect of air travel ?

More like an Airbus A300 and a Boeing 777, that type of thing. Notice how the planes have basically the same shape, despite one being twice the size of the other.

 
Last edited:
. Lets say they are just contrails that linger and spread out and block the sun . Isnt that geoengineering or SRM ? Just not done on purpose but a side effect of air travel ?

It has an effect. But geoengineering or SRM (Management) implies a deliberate intent. Humans have affected the climate in MANY ways for centuries. Nobody called it geoengineering.
 
7.7 magnitude earhquake same place as the Big Iron dump in the pacific ? Now thats going to be a big time conspiracy :)
 
It has an effect. But geoengineering or SRM (Management) implies a deliberate intent. Humans have affected the climate in MANY ways for centuries. Nobody called it geoengineering.
No iv actually heard the geoengineers refer to man made causes of global warming as a form of geoengineering
 
More like an Airbus A300 and a Boeing 777, that type of thing. Notice how the planes have basically the same shape, despite one being twice the size of the other.
I wouldnt say twice the size http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/A300-600/777-300/ . but I get your point . So if the higher plane is actually smaller not higher why would it be harder to zoom in at ? You figure it would be just as clear at near the same altitude regardless of size ? It a very big difference . Ill check my pictures and compare
 
I wouldnt say twice the size http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/A300-600/777-300/ . but I get your point . So if the higher plane is actually smaller not higher why would it be harder to zoom in at ? You figure it would be just as clear at near the same altitude regardless of size ? It a very big difference . Ill check my pictures and compare

You mean harder for the camera to focus? Probably because it's smaller, so less pixels to work with for the autofocus. If you can manually set the focus, then set it to infinity for both shots.
 
No iv actually heard the geoengineers refer to man made causes of global warming as a form of geoengineering

Yeah, they say things like "inadvertent geoengineering", but that's like inadvertently performing surgery on yourself with a kitchen knife. If you did not intend to do it, then it's not really the same thing. They also say things like "man has effectively been geoengineering the planet for generations". It's just loose use of language. The word "geoengineering" itself does not have a solid meaning. Best to clarify exactly what you mean.
 
No. You are wrong. Robock wrote his paper to show how lower startospheric geoengineering would have repercussions, and he used that altitude not because it would be effective, but because that is the limit of the aircraft available.
Neither of your links speaks to effectiveness at those altitudes. Both only speak of what would happen if sulfur was placed in the lower stratosphere. They were studies about the fallout and acid rain if such a path were chosen, which was considerable when the model put sulfur in the lower stratosphere. It falls out way too fast to be effective and increases acid rain.
No feasible geoengineering would be done at altitudes less than 18 Km, or 60,000 feet, just like Pinatubo did.
Don't believe me, ask Robock or Keith yourself and see what they say, then report back.
So Jay . . . if geoengineering were being done on a grand scale since say 1999 just where and what altitude do you think they would be injecting?? They would be injecting at the height they were capable of reaching . . . at more northern latitudes . . . and at more frequent missions . . . simple, if the authors did not think the lower level scenarios plausible they wouldn't have wasted their time addressing the potential consequences . . .

Here is another useless cost analysis done to show geoengineering is not feasible .. . . this one using 747s at 45,000 feet . . .


Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf


2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.


For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.


A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:


x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year
Content from External Source
 
I'm not clear though exactly what freedoms are denied me.

You are denied freedom from institutionalized threats of violence. You are denied free will.


And what happens when enough people wake up? What will the world look like?

Peaceniks like me predict a world with less violence will be cleaner, safer, and more prosperous. The truth is nobody really knows and it doesn't matter. Had you asked Lord Mansfield in 1790 what would the world look like two hundred years after chattel slavery was abolished, he would not have been able to tell you, just as Ben Franklin would not have been able to tell you how cell phones would work.

Who would feed the slaves?! Their lack of self-sufficiency skills would result in crime and chaos! It didn't matter then just as it doesn't matter today.

Mick, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to watch that video. I sincerely hope you will consider integrating the Non-Aggression Principle into your personal moral code. I'm still trying because it's a good path.
 
You are denied freedom from institutionalized threats of violence. You are denied free will.
And how would this free will manifest itself? I feel like I have free will now. Abolishing income tax would seem to be a pretty small change overall.

Peaceniks like me predict a world with less violence will be cleaner, safer, and more prosperous. The truth is nobody really knows and it doesn't matter. Had you asked Lord Mansfield in 1790 what would the world look like two hundred years after chattel slavery was abolished, he would not have been able to tell you, just as Ben Franklin would not have been able to tell you how cell phones would work.

Who would feed the slaves?! Their lack of self-sufficiency skills would result in crime and chaos! It didn't matter then just as it doesn't matter today.
Abolishing slavery has some very specific implications. People cannot own slaves. Slaves can now own property. I'm asking what the implications of "waking up" are. Is it just income tax?

Mick, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to watch that video. I sincerely hope you will consider integrating the Non-Aggression Principle into your personal moral code. I'm still trying because it's a good path.

Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

However it does not seem like an entirely clear principle, and has several well founded criticisms. I don't suppose there are examples of societies actually working on this basis? Seems like it's been suggested as an abstract ideal for 2500 year, but does not actually work in practice.
 
surely we have free will because god says we have? We are free to break any laws we can manage......

TCW you never said which activities it is that "geoengineers are planning" that you have seen "mimicked"??
 
Sustainable Development comes from a Foreign Entity: Formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the Brundtland Commission's mission is to unite countries to pursue sustainable development together. The Chairman of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was appointed by Javier Perez de Cuellar, former Secretary General of the United Nations, in December 1983. At the time, the UN General Assembly realized that there was a heavy deterioration of the human environment and natural resources. To rally countries to work and pursue sustainable development together, the UN decided to establish the Brundtland Commission. Gro Harlem Brundtland was the former Prime Minister of Norway and was chosen due to her strong background in the sciences and public health. The Brundtland Commission officially dissolved in December 1987 after releasing the Brundtland Report in October 1987. The organization Center for Our Common Future was started in April 1988 to take the place of the Commission.---wikipedia

which is well and good - but that is not what yuo were saying was the foreign entity:

For starters Bush sr promised our participation at the Rio Summit in 1992. Thanks George. Bill did EO 12852 for Sustainable Development to be implemented down to all levels of govt. Congress didn't make it law. It is a foreign entity that is contrary to our Constitutional Rights...land.

There you are saying that EO 12852 is a foreign entity.

Perhaps what you really mean is that sustainable development is a foreign idea?

Yes I knew that the council wasn't a foreign entity. OK he had a committee & he was advised about SD and it has been implemented down to the local level. Since Bush sr the all the presidents have been pushing us for global governance away from the Constitution towards UN objectives such as SD, Smart Growth....

Why are these objectives "away from the constitution"??

To begin with the Constitution gave the federal & state govts certain powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

That one looks pretty good - "general welfare".....


That one also looks like it is relevant insofar as

So can you show me where it states its OK for Bill to get SD (a foreign agenda) implemented down to the local levels?

As above

Congress did not have to make law - the legal basis already existed - the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

So would another example if Nobama was to ask Holder to start The Federal take Guns Away from Americans Advisory Committee that the legal basis already exists?

In what way do you see such a request (and so perjoratively put!) as being comparable to the existance of EO's as allowed by Congress? Perhaps you could check what it is that eth enabling act for EO'sd actually allows??

As far as I can see at the moment you do not ever bother to read whatever you are criticising - your argument technique seems to be to put up as many extreme and/or silly examples as possible, and to ignore the facts where they are inconvenient for you!!


and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And...

Now would this mean for the fed govt to either buy up as much land as possible to protect it to satisfy the UN's & Environmental Organizations goals of rewilding over 50% of the USA?

no - it would relate to fort and other installations - why do you put up such stupid examples/arguments??

What about The Wildlands Network map? Are you in agreement with that?

In agreement with it in what way?? It is clearly inaccurately titled - nothing is "mandated" from any of the documents given in the title - any "mandate" will come from US law passed by the US Congress.

I presume your "50% of the USA" in the section above comment relates to it? If so it looks, by eye, as if consuiderably less than 50% of hte USA would become wilderness if this weer implemented in full.
 
surely we have free will because god says we have? We are free to break any laws we can manage......

Tcw you never said which activities it is that "geoengineers are planning" that you have seen "mimicked"??
srm mcb
 
Amd how has srm been mimicked - what is it you saw that mimics it?

not sure what mcb is sorry - some explaination would be appreciated - again with what it is you saw that you think mimics it?
 
Amd how has srm been mimicked - what is it you saw that mimics it?

not sure what mcb is sorry - some explaination would be appreciated - again with what it is you saw that you think mimics it?
Marine Cloud Brightening proposed to weaken hurricanes . Like Sandy . Guess it didnt work to well . Mimics SRM to reflect sunlight or block sunlight . What some conspiracy people call Chemtrails .
 
thanks - I see no similarity between Marine Cloud Brightening and chemtrails tho - almost all of the schemes involve generating ocean spray to brighten low level clouds.

And it seems to have nothing to do with weakening hurricanes.

So no actual mimickry there that I can see.
 
thanks - I see no similarity between Marine Cloud Brightening and chemtrails tho - almost all of the schemes involve generating ocean spray to brighten low level clouds.

And it seems to have nothing to do with weakening hurricanes.

So no actual mimickry there that I can see.
2 separate answers , Join geoengineering google groups :In connection with localization, have you considered Marine Cloud
Brightening (MCB)? Although this idea has largely been developed with
global influence in mind, it could also address much more localised issues.
If MCB is found to be efficacious it could possibly weaken the strength
of hurricanes (and the associated damage) by cooling the surface waters
in regions where hurricanes spawn.We have just published a paper on
this topic:-

John Latham, Ben Parkes, Alan Gadian,Stephen Salter, 2012.
Weakening of Hurricanes via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB),
Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.402
 
What specifically are you referring to by this manipulation and coercement? And what truths are people not being told?

The manipulation & dishonesty about these programs is that they're not telling the people "We're not telling you that we want to rewild over 50% of the US % & being your property is in the way, well too bad, but we are going to use these nature trails & protected areas that will connect to other counties nature trails & protected areas "wildlife corridors" throughout the whole nation to use Eminent Domain" because we can.

That more ranchers and farmers will be pushed off their land. There are already drones flying over Iowa and Nebraska.

http://battlefieldamerica.wordpress...n-groups-sue-forest-service-over-grazing-fee/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...se-of-spy-drones-over-iowa-neb-cattle-ranches

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/1...le-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/
 
The manipulation & dishonesty about these programs is that they're not telling the people "We're not telling you that we want to rewild over 50% of the US % & being your property is in the way, well too bad, but we are going to use these nature trails & protected areas that will connect to other counties nature trails & protected areas "wildlife corridors" throughout the whole nation to use Eminent Domain" because we can.

That more ranchers and farmers will be pushed off their land. There are already drones flying over Iowa and Nebraska.

http://battlefieldamerica.wordpress...n-groups-sue-forest-service-over-grazing-fee/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...se-of-spy-drones-over-iowa-neb-cattle-ranches

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/1...le-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/
another reason why Obama wants the estate tax . If you inherit a farm thats worth a few million dollars You will have to pay estate taxes on that farm costing you millions to keep the farm . They say its mostly about the water . In Colorado you cant even keep the water that runs off your roof and here in florida even though lake Okeechobee is being drained because the level is too high they still want water restrictions ?
 
another reason why Obama wants the estate tax . If you inherit a farm thats worth a few million dollars You will have to pay estate taxes on that farm costing you millions to keep the farm . They say its mostly about the water . In Colorado you cant even keep the water that runs off your roof and here in florida even though lake Okeechobee is being drained because the level is too high they still want water restrictions ?

Obama wants to drain every penny out of the American people. He should try to get the tax code revised to keep businesses from moving overseas. He is for the UN global govt.

"We've got to give them a stake in creating a world order all of us would like to see."---Obama
 
Obama wants to drain every penny out of the American people. He should try to get the tax code revised to keep businesses from moving overseas. He is for the UN global govt.

"We've got to give them a stake in creating a world order all of us would like to see."---Obama

Last time I read about the Colorado water situation they were fighting it. There is too much intrusion in our lives by the govt.
 
another reason why Obama wants the estate tax . If you inherit a farm thats worth a few million dollars You will have to pay estate taxes on that farm costing you millions to keep the farm . They say its mostly about the water . In Colorado you cant even keep the water that runs off your roof and here in florida even though lake Okeechobee is being drained because the level is too high they still want water restrictions ?

You already have estate tax - the proposal from Obama is to take it back to 2009 levels - ie what it was when he inherited it from Bush!!

In fact without Congressional action the top rate will be 55% - Obama's plan is to limit the top rate to 45% - less than the rollback that the previous tax cuts would require!!

Romney would do away with it entirely - but then that's income the Govt won't have - how's that deficit looking??
 
2 separate answers , Join geoengineering google groups :In connection with localization, have you considered Marine Cloud
Brightening (MCB)? Although this idea has largely been developed with
global influence in mind, it could also address much more localised issues.
If MCB is found to be efficacious it could possibly weaken the strength
of hurricanes (and the associated damage) by cooling the surface waters
in regions where hurricanes spawn.We have just published a paper on
this topic:-

John Latham, Ben Parkes, Alan Gadian,Stephen Salter, 2012.
Weakening of Hurricanes via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB),
Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.402
Joe, that would take place generally far out in the atlantic, from ships, targeting low level clouds with fountains of sea water.

MCB.jpg

Its pointless to associate that with your sightings of contrails. Looks silly, in fact.
 
"We've got to give them a stake in creating a world order all of us would like to see."---Obama

See, there's another quote without context.

Who was Obama referring to there, and why?

If you don't know, then why use the quote?
 
MuttKat when are you going to stop your Gish Gallop?

When I truly agree with you and I seem to know thats not going to happen. We can agree that we disagree.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.---Karl Marx

The task is to] covertly lower the standard of living, the whole social structure, of America so that we can be merged with all other nations.


We operate here under directives which emanate from the White House... The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States such that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.

Rowen Gaithner

The public has a duty to watch their govt closely....keep it on the right track.----General Kenneth Monnihan



 
See, there's another quote without context.

Who was Obama referring to there, and why?

If you don't know, then why use the quote?

It was in an interview with Russert, the journanalist who died a couple of years ago & I don't remember the name of the video.
 
Back
Top