Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis Call-In: 888-673-3700 Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:03:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 4/24: Reversed Assumptions w/ David John Oates Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:03:05 +0000 It is as if we have reversed time and are reliving nightmare of racial bating and threats against our rights. It is difficult to challenge all assumptions, but we need to remember our history in order to avoid repeating it. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes old friend David John Oates back to the […]

(Read more...)




4/24: Reversed Assumptions w/ David John OatesIt is as if we have reversed time and are reliving nightmare of racial bating and threats against our rights. It is difficult to challenge all assumptions, but we need to remember our history in order to avoid repeating it. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes old friend David John Oates back to the show for an amazing night of reverse speech and ‘Reversed Assumptions‘!

]]> 1
Reversed Assumptions Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:02:44 +0000 REVERSED ASSUMPTIONS There is a big secret that isn’t discussed at parties or at the water cooler. It won’t even be said on the nightly news or told to you by your president, pope or king. Everything inter-penetrates everything, the present does have an effect on the future and not every action immediately has an […]

(Read more...)



Reversed Assumptions


There is a big secret that isn’t discussed at parties or at the water cooler. It won’t even be said on the nightly news or told to you by your president, pope or king. Everything inter-penetrates everything, the present does have an effect on the future and not every action immediately has an effect.

It is also important to understand that the present can also reverse itself and find itself in very familiar territory as we are creatures of habit and patterns of ignorance return and we hope that we learn from the mistakes of history.

A surprising number of people will make two assumptions. One: you must not extend your thinking beyond the rigidity of what confirms your cognitive bias – and Two: There is a default position of non-action when you are confused about an issue.

When this happens we begin to see a “distancing effect” that confuses and issue and soon inaction is a response to something that shocks us or frightens us into doing nothing or abandoning something that was once important.

Obviously there are many things that we take for granted and it is unreasonable to believe that people are capable or even willing to challenge every assumption. It is however an even greater challenge to ask people to show that nothing is sacrosanct. Once we truly realize this we can be open to new and unusual discoveries.

The biggest challenge that most people have is to reverse their assumptions in order to find that the mind has a creative side that has the freedom to question, the freedom to challenge conventional thought and to push thought into the margins.

We are now more than a decade into the new century and we still have thoughts and ideas that are not only 20th century thoughts, but thoughts and ideas that seem to be medieval thoughts and as we think so comes the manifestation of things that we once thought disappeared like the horse and buggy or small pox.

The truth is, the news we read about the wars and the rumors of wars, the return plagues and antiquated thinking are beginning to shape and push the consciousness in a direction that stalls our progress.

Reversing these ideas and assumptions broadens our thinking and we realize the elasticity of thought and how we may look at the same thing as everybody else, yet seeing something different.

In a world where ideas and attitudes are as numerous as grains of sand on a beach, you may want to admit that there may not be one right answer and with that we can find many ways of viewing or understanding existing information.

The media has a tendency to judge commentary by those who fall into their trap of being “noticed,” and they fail to do research on what may be the source of these comments and where they may come from.

This morning I woke up to a talk show that was speaking about reported racist statements by Cliven Bundy, the rancher in Nevada that has been defending his farm against the BLM.

This was really discouraging because I was accused of being a racist days ago, only because I was on the side of Bundy, only because I think it is the right of every American to defend their land against hostile takeover.

The accusation of my so-called racism was based in the fact that if I support Bundy’s constitutional right to defend his farm and family, then I also side with the militia and within the militia there are racists.

Therefore, I must be a racist.

Well, I still can’t stand for the comment that was made by Harry Reid that those who defended Bundy were domestic terrorists.

For the record, I am not supportive of the comments that were made by Bundy regarding “the Negro”. However, I still support his right to defend his family against a hostile takeover by federal agents.

I winced as a I was reading his racist comments. Here they are from MSNBC:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

I couldn’t help but think while reading his comments that this changes the entire image of the farmer and that his comments are going to have general impact on whether or not his fight to save his farm are valid.

I can tell you that his fight to save his farm is still valid even if he made these racist statements. He utilized his First Amendment right and used his right to free speech. It is not popular speech, and I don’t support his statements, but we can’t let his ignorant statements cloud the real issue of whether or not the BLM has the legal right to surround his property with armed agents, kill some of his cattle, and harass and physically harm his relatives.

The Republican contingent that supported Bundy have now distanced themselves from Bundy’s cause. This confuses me because I can recall tow GOP presidential hopefuls that shared the same views as Bundy or at least committed to them with a signature.

Back in July of 2011, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were in a swell of controversy when they both signed a conservative pledge entitled, “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.”

Back then the pledge “contained a controversial preamble suggesting black children born into slavery had better family structures than black children now,as CNN reported at the time.

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.” — excerpt from “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” (REDACTED)

Word got out about the statement within the pledge and it was immediately removed, however, not before Santorum and Bachmann signed it.

Once again, these statements are deplorable and yet these politicians seem to have no problem being supported by their GOP contributors.

The hypocrisy now seems to be rearing its head with regard to Bundy and Republicans that are now distancing themselves from the controversy.

For example, Republican junior Senator Dean Heller from Nevada went head-to-pointy-head with Democratic Senator Harry Reid over the issue of Reid’s comments about the militia and Bundy being domestic terrorists. Heller said that he thought the Bundy ranchers were patriots. “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.” As The Wire reported, “He added that he wanted hearings to figure out “who’s accountable for this.”

Since Bundy’s comments, he now is backing away from the issue and condemns the statements that were made. This is not surprising. In fact this is becoming a circus of assumptions and political bravado.

That is why Bundy as an individual may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and his racist statements now cloud the issue of who is right and who is wrong, but all people are guaranteed constitutional rights in the United States.

All thugs, malcontents, racists, morons and scumbags have rights under the Constitution.

While Bundy’s comments immediately make him ignorant and antiquated the issue is whether or not his cause still important to defend.

While I am not excusing racism, can we remember what Vicki Weaver, the victim of the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, thought of African Americans?

The Crime Library documents:

Even though the Weavers disagreed with many of the views held by the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist group, the couple attended several of their meetings throughout the mid to late 1980′s. Bikers, skinheads, Klansman and neo-Nazi’s usually attended these meetings, however it was common knowledge that undercover agents and informants also attended them in hopes of discovering illegal dealings or terrorist plots.

Vikki Weaver had racist views, but did she deserve to be shot and killed by agents while holding her baby? I often wonder about how controversial her killing would be today. After all she was a racist too, she was a mother and was shot has she was taking care of her child.

Randy Weaver lived with his wife Vikki and four children in an isolated cabin on Ruby Ridge in the Idaho mountains, 40 miles south of the Canadian border. Mr. Weaver did not favor violence against any other race, but believed that the races should live separately. Because of his extreme beliefs, he was targeted for a sting operation.

With Bundy’s comments are we beginning to see a reversed Ruby Ridge situation developing?

Perhaps we should call it out and demonstrate a causal reversal or temporal mirroring of Ruby Ridge, which can get worse before it gets better.

As James Bovard wrote in his 1995 Wall Street Journal article, ‘ No Accountability at the FBI’: “The Weaver case is by far the most important civil-rights/civil-liberties case the Clinton administration has yet resolved — and it resolved it in favor of granting unlimited deadly power to federal agents.

During that time, militias were vilified, gun rights were being threatened and government overreach was being decried as anti-Constitutional.

It is as if we have reversed time and are reliving nightmare of racial bating, threatening words from senators and threats against our First, Second and Fourth amendment rights.

It is difficult to challenge all assumptions, but we need to somehow remember our history in order to avoid repeating it.

I seem to have seen this all before and I am living it again.

The end of the story may have a different outcome than it did in the 1990’s; however, there is still that threat of watching more human rights violations taking place under the new and effective police state and security apparatus.

]]> 4
4/23: Asteroidal Itch Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:39:53 +0000 While astronauts are giving us chilling findings about potentially hazardous near-earth objects, the CFR is confirming that the United States needs to leverage its influence to prevent ‘space danger’ from occurring in the very near future. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis scratches the ‘Asteroidal Itch: Dumb Luck Or Divine Intervention?‘!

(Read more...)



4/23: Asteroidal ItchWhile astronauts are giving us chilling findings about potentially hazardous near-earth objects, the CFR is confirming that the United States needs to leverage its influence to prevent ‘space danger’ from occurring in the very near future. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis scratches the ‘Asteroidal Itch: Dumb Luck Or Divine Intervention?‘!

]]> 2
Asteroidal Itch: Dumb Luck Or Divine Intervention? Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:38:30 +0000 ASTEROIDAL ITCH: DUMB LUCK OR DIVINE INTERVENTION? A week ago, Christian televangelist John Hagee showed up on Fox News to tell us all about the blood red moon tetrad and how in no certain terms spelled our doom here on earth. Four blood red moons on the feasts of the Jews can get all sorts […]

(Read more...)



Asteroidal Itch: Dumb Luck Or Divine Intervention?


A week ago, Christian televangelist John Hagee showed up on Fox News to tell us all about the blood red moon tetrad and how in no certain terms spelled our doom here on earth. Four blood red moons on the feasts of the Jews can get all sorts of Christians looking for signs and wonders indicating that the second coming is near and that the tribulation is about to begin.

So far, the blood red moon’s influence will carry into the end of April as the Cardinal Cross has formed; this is also an indicator of apocalyptic uproar, triggering natural disasters and other catastrophes on Earth.

Not to be outdone, televangelist and failed presidential candidate Pat Robertson spun a bit of doom of his own by stating that an asteroid – or has he puts it in his “folksy” prose, “a big ol’ hunk of space rock” – could be heading our way sometime next week.

I don’t see anything else that fulfills the prophetic words of Jesus Christ other than an asteroid strike,” said Robertson on The 700 Club television broadcast last Monday. “There isn’t anything else that will cause the seas to roil, the skies to darken.

Of course, in the same breath Robertson was plugging his book ‘The End of the Age,’ which asserts a meteor will destroy the Earth.

So far Robertson has not blamed that asteroid on the homosexual agenda or on the scores of people that worship Satan; however, I am told to give him time.

The sad thing about what Robertson is saying or predicting is that he may be on to something because of recent data that suggests a dangerous space event may occur.

While Robertson says that it may happen next week, astronauts, scientists and even the Council on Foreign relations are saying that there is a potential for the reality to transpire.

However, they are not saying next week or next year, in fact, they can’t say or predict anything and even claim that we have been pretty lucky that a devastating space event hasn’t happened due to new data that has been released.

A week prior to Earth Day, there was an announcement by the B612 Foundation that briefly had a number of blogs buzzing about possible nuclear tests that were happening all over the globe. There seemed to be a number of mysterious explosions that were being detected in various areas and they were being detected by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization. This organization monitors the planet round the clock listening for the infrasound signature of nuclear detonations.

There were also small Earth tremors associated with these explosions and there was plenty of speculation that all of these explosions indicated that various countries were secretly testing nuclear bombs around the world.

According to a press briefing provided by the B612 Foundation, between the years of 2000 to 2013 the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization detected dozens of massive explosions in our atmosphere. Not a single one of those explosions detected were attributed to a nuclear detonation.

They were surprised when they found out that causes of the explosions were asteroid impacts.

Between the years 2000 and 2013 there were 26 reported asteroid impacts on Earth. Once again, these were direct hits to the planet and many of these impacts took place in remote areas of the earth, mostly in the oceans.

The impacts had the power that ranged anywhere from 1 to 600 kiloton explosions.

For comparison, the atomic bomb that exploded and destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 was only 15 kilotons.

Many of the other asteroids that were detected had exploded too high in the atmosphere to damage things too much on the ground. Those that made it through exploded in the ocean.

The atmospheric explosions that were detected were very powerful and caused the sky to hum or even ring in some areas. It is now becoming less rare for these events to happen now and, while any asteroid taking out a major city is still considered an event that happens once a century, the odds are increasing that a space rock could impact earth and cause damage and or death.

We don’t know when or where an asteroid will hit the planet and so according the strategy for predicting and preventing a massive mega-death event is purely “blind luck“.

As Wired writes: “The asteroid that exploded over Chelyabinsk in February 2013 exploded with an energy of around 500 kilotons. Despite having a mass of around 13,000 metric tonnes and measuring 20 metres in diameter, it entered the Earth’s atmosphere undetected.” When it exploded, it caused property damage and injured 1,200 people.

Now, just four days ago near the Arctic Circle, Russians detected another huge meteor that entered into the atmosphere and exploded near the region of Murmansk.

As Newsweek reports, “Footage from a dashboard camera in a car on a snow-lined road in the Murmansk region, north of the Arctic Circle, showed a bright ball streaking diagonally toward Earth, pulsating twice and disappearing behind a building. The time was 2:14 a.m. on Sunday (2214 GMT on Saturday).

Meanwhile, the frequency of large fireball sightings has increased everywhere across this planet. Many of these fireballs have illuminated the night sky and, in some cases, have created a sort of ‘daylight effect’ because of the brightness.

The meteor that appeared over Chelyabinsk Russia last year was “30 times brighter than the sun“.

A 2013 scientific research paper called, ‘Chelyabinsk Airburst, Damage Assessment, Meteorite Recovery, and Characterization‘, reports:

Out of the total 1,674 collected internet queries, 374 mention 452 body injuries or inconveniences…

Of those, 5.3% reported sunburn, 48% eyes hurt, and 2.9% felt retinal burns. Because of the shock wave, 6.4% reported a concussion or mental confusion, upset, or exhaustion as a result of excessive stress…

People found it painful to look at the bright fireball, but glancing away prevented lasting eye damage.

Of 1,113 respondents to an internet survey who were outside at the time, 25 were sunburned (2.2%), 315 felt hot (28%) and 415 (37%) warm…

Mild sunburns were reported through out the survey area…

After the Russian meteor was seen on February 14, 2013, a quick report was given and said that we would be seeing these types of events twice a decade. Now the new findings confirm that we will be seeing a lot more damaging space rocks entering our atmosphere including those that flash and explode in the atmosphere.

As we have realized by what happened with the Russian incident, there are as of yet space rocks that go unchecked that could do significant damage if they impact or explode above the Earth’s surface near populated areas.

It is a fact that over 300 objects intersect Earth’s orbital trajectory each year. They range in size from a soccer ball to the size of Manhattan. It is only a matter of time before we arrive at the wrong place at the wrong time.

After glancing at the Sentry Risk Table, maintained by the NASA/JPL Near-Earth Object Program. There are only a few potentially hazardous space rocks that rank on the Torino Scale of level 1 or higher. They are not scheduled or planned to get anywhere near us on a dangerous level until the 2030’s or even the 2040’s.

However, it doesn’t take a very large rock to ruin your day as the tables indicate that objects ranging from 5-10 meters wide impact Earth about once per year and deliver as much energy as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. They usually go unnoticed because most of Earth’s surface is uninhabited, and the energy is usually released high in Earth’s atmosphere.

Many of these so-called “space dangers” has raised concerns with groups like the Council on Foreign Relations. They’ve issued a report, seemingly in tandem with that Earth Day announcement, saying that it is critical to act now against the threat of extra-terrestrial dangers that could trigger wars or international crisis.

According to the CFR website, there needs to be an emergency meeting to discuss the space capabilities of many nations of the world and their ability to help in deterring a potentially dangerous space event.

According to the CFR’s ‘Dangerous Space Incidents: Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 21‘, “tactical warning indicators would suggest that a dangerous space event is forthcoming.

However, there is no date suggested for the event, only that such a space event would trigger a worldwide crisis including a resource war.

Dangerous or potentially dangerous space events also include EMP or electromagnetic pulse detonations brought on by nuclear blasts in the atmosphere in the event of a war or attack.

According to the report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations:

Tactical warning indicators tend to be more overt. They include significant changes in the alert status or operational readiness of military units associated with China, North Korea, or Iran’s missile or space programs; the unexpected announcement of the closure of airspace to civilian aircraft over the territory of previous space launches; or preparations for missile tests from satellite launching stations which are usually detectable days, if not weeks, in advance. Space launches from road-mobile missile units, although closely monitored, would likely occur with less warning, if any. Additional indicators include specific space-related warnings or rhetoric, or the declaration of an anti-satellite or ballistic missile defense test, although no warning would be issued. The 2007 Chinese ASAT test that destroyed an LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite was not preceded by any specific warnings.

Furthermore, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 21 also states:

The United States has three primary national interests in preventing or mitigating the dangerous space contingencies detailed above, which would threaten U.S. or allied space assets and produce mass space debris, imperiling assured access to space.

Strategic warning indicators include statements of intention to interfere with or develop the capability to interfere with space operations of other powers during a crisis or wartime; evidence of such intent, including research and development or budget indicators, organizational changes, or intelligence collection; noticeably increased efforts to disrupt space communications using lasers or jammers against satellites or ground-based transmitters; or the sudden and unexplained launch of additional satellites into LEO, accompanied by an increase in aggressive or potentially hostile maneuvers.

Certain indicators are suggestive of potential military escalation or onset of conflict. These include a heightened diplomatic crisis involving the United States and China, North Korea, or Iran that could result in terrestrial military escalation and trigger a crisis-related interference in space; militarized tensions or direct conflict between one of the three countries and the United States, a U.S. treaty ally, or a non-U.S. ally with known space capabilities, such as India or Russia; or an internal power struggle among governing elites in China, North Korea, or Iran, prompting space activities intended to consolidate domestic power or stoke nationalism.

The Council on Foreign Relations is now urging the United States China, North Korea, and Iran to mitigate or prevent dangerous space incidents and limit the multiplication of space debris that threaten space assets of all countries involved.

It is interesting to note that back when Ground Zero was investigating the possibility that space debris or perhaps an asteroid was responsible for downing Malaysian Flight MH370, a potentially dangerous fireball shower was seen all over eastern Asia at the time. There was also a study that was released and it indicated that more than 38 large debris objects have re-entered the atmosphere since the beginning of 2012.

In 2013, the Cayman Compass reported in their article, ‘Aircraft Face Hazard From Space Debris‘:

Washington’s Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the US Department of Defence have developed aircraft vulnerability models, concluding that a fragment as small as 300 grams would prove “catastrophic” to aircraft, particularly if penetrating the fuselage or fuel tank.

It seems that the attitude about the rarity of such events is changing and, while astronauts are giving us chilling findings about potentially hazardous near-earth objects, the CFR is confirming that the United States needs to leverage its influence to develop a foolproof contingency plan to prevent a space danger from occurring in the very near future.

The question is: Are we going to continue to rely on ‘blind luck’ to keep us safe?

Or are we looking towards divine intervention to prevent the extra-terrestrial threats that will soon present themselves?

Either one seems to be a worthless endeavor.

]]> 8
4/22: Married With Jesus w/ Tracy Twyman Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:34:51 +0000 If Jesus was married with children, does that change his divinity? So why does the church want to cover up this possibility that Jesus had a wife? Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis runs away with Tracy Twyman so they can get ‘Married With Jesus‘!

(Read more...)




4/22: Married With Jesus w/ Tracy TwymanIf Jesus was married with children, does that change his divinity? So why does the church want to cover up this possibility that Jesus had a wife? Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis runs away with Tracy Twyman so they can get ‘Married With Jesus‘!

]]> 7
Married With Jesus Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:32:33 +0000 MARRIED WITH JESUS With all of the breaking stories and wonderful guests we have been reviewing for the show, I feel a little remiss about the fact that while I focused a bit on Passover and the tetrad prior to the event and – as we are passing into that cardinal Cross – I am […]

(Read more...)



Married With Jesus


With all of the breaking stories and wonderful guests we have been reviewing for the show, I feel a little remiss about the fact that while I focused a bit on Passover and the tetrad prior to the event and – as we are passing into that cardinal Cross – I am keeping vigilant for anything that may signify that a life-changing event is about to occur.

On Saturday before Easter, I was notified by a colleague that there was to be a special announcement from the Vatican and that it has something to do with extra-terrestrials. As far as I know the Pope has not officially given disclosure to his flock, there was another story that seemed to be the hot topic at the Easter Brunch and that was a significant change in attitude with regards to the matriarchal order and the divine feminine being recognized by the various churches of the world.

Just last year a posthumous compilation of Joseph Campbell’s views on the influence of the divine feminine in mythology was released.

As Dr. Laura Kern noted in her review of the book, ‘Goddesses’, what is fascinating is “Campbell’s description of the impact of the suppression of the feminine divine by Semitic mythologies, and how this changed both mythology and the world:

“And so, with these masculine Semitic mythologies, we have for the first time a separation of the individual from the divine, and this is one of the most important and decisive motifs in the history of mythology: that the eternal life and oneness with the universe are no longer ours. We are separated from God, God is separated from his world, man is turned against nature, nature is turned against man” (p. 86).

The connections he made between the feminine divine and the story of Christ:

“Going back at least nine thousand years to the early agriculture of the Near East and Old Europe, we have a tradition of the power of the Goddess and of her child who dies and is resurrected—namely, it is we who come from her, go back to her, and rest well in her. This tradition was carried through the cults of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and down into the Classical world, before finally delivering the message into Christian teaching” (p. 257).”

However, nothing has been more controversial than what was announced just prior to Easter about “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.”

In 2012, the story first broke about a small bit of ancient Coptic papyri that indicates that Jesus had a wife. The story did not last long in the news cycle and was met with by protests from other academics, who claimed the textual fragment was likely a forgery.
As the Harvard Gazette reported in the article, ‘Papyrus Fragment Put To Test’:

Twice in the tiny fragment, Jesus speaks of his mother, his wife, and a female disciple — one of whom may be identified as “Mary.” The disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy, and Jesus states that “she can be my disciple.”

According To Karen L. King of the Harvard Divinity School, the “fragment has reemerged, this time with a verification of the fragment’s authenticity…As the National Review reports, “King claims her tests show it was written four to eight hundred years after the New Testament texts.

King has insisted that she never intended to present the fragment as evidence that Jesus was married, but merely as evidence that some Christians may have believed that he was. The fragment’s authenticity does not mean that it will be included in the canonical gospels.

The fragment of papyri mentioning Jesus’ wife, mother and disciple raises the question about why people feel that it is absolutely blasphemy to even say or think that Jesus was married.

There have been stories throughout history that have indicated that Jesus had a wife and there are many sensational stories that he may have been married to Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany and one other woman, possibly Mary’s sister Martha.

Margaret Starbird writes that, “The Christian Gospels say nothing specific about the marital status of Jesus, but the Hebrew language had no word for “bachelor” in the first century A.D., probably because marriage was a “cultural imperative” in their society.

There are also claims that strong evidence from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, including the Gospels themselves, supports rather than denies, the claim that Jesus was married.

It is also pointed out that a rabbi (a term used to identify Jesus) had to be married by law. There are other ancient texts that support the reality that Mary was not only close to Jesus, but she was favored by him and that attention was significantly different than the affection he showed the other apostles.

It is also interesting to note that while the western church sees Mary Magdalene as a prostitute that was exorcised of seven demons, the eastern church has always honored her as an apostle based on the account that is found in the Gospel of John where Jesus himself tells her to give the news of his resurrection to the other disciples.

It is also interesting to note that in the gospel of John, Jesus tells Mary not to touch him and then allows Thomas to touch his hands and thrust his hand into his side in order to prove it is him.

Why is there an incongruity to Jesus statements? Mary should not touch, but Thomas may touch?

It is because when he speaks to Mary there is a mistranslation. He does not want Mary to cling to him in an intimate manner.

There are many scholars who say that the Greek translation of “To touch” was ambiguous. In Thomas’ case, it was a “touch” that did not have any intimate intent. When Jesus spoke to Mary, he was indicating that Mary should not embrace him in the way she did before his death. When he spoke to Thomas, it was not to counter an intimate desire but to rebuke a lack of faith.

While the ambiguity of the scripture is up for debate, it can indicate that prior to Jesus’ death Mary would cling to or hold on to Jesus in an intimate moment, much in the same way that a wife would to her husband.

The Papyri that has now surfaced has now ignited debate in the Catholic Church.

The New York Times is reporting that that the origin of the fragment is not known because the owner asked to remain anonymous. Still, the Times reports, this ancient debate is relevant and compelling because it something that is gaining momentum in the religious world.

The NYTimes says: “Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

However, the model that they describe is incomplete. The period between Jesus’ birth and the final days of his ministry is not even in the bible. These years are known as the lost years of Jesus.

The New Testament has a ‘black hole’ from the ages 12 to 30 of Jesus’ life. I remember when I attended a Pentecostal Ministry and asked why we only know of his birth, his time in the temple at 12 or 13 and then his baptism and then his ministry. I was told that it is a part of Jesus’ life that God doesn’t want you to know about, or else he would have made sure it was included in the Bible. Christian sects in the second half of the second century believed that Jesus indeed had a wife and traveled the world with her from India, to Gaul, and to what is now called Britain.

In the year where Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” was popular, I toured as the ‘Ground Zero Lounge‘ and spoke about Anglo-Israelism and the idea that Jesus had married and that his children sired the bloodline that has been theorized to be the line of various kings and queens of Europe.

MARRIED WITH JESUS_windowAn amazing depiction of Christ and Mary Magdalene can be found in Kilmore Church in Scotland where a stained glass window shows Jesus in a right handed clasp with Mary – and Mary appears pregnant. The window shows the artwork of Stephen Adam and the clasping of the right hands is most certainly part of the Christian tradition that is part of the marriage ceremony.

While it is not specific as to whether or not Jesus and Mary were married, there are many non-canonical gospels that all make Mary to be a very powerful influence in his life.

In the Gospel of Thomas, a few of the disciples suggest that women are not worthy of life or even association with Christ. However, Jesus extols Mary Magdalene as being different as show knows how men think.

In the Gospel of Peter, she is called the first evangelist of the good news of Jesus’ resurrection and an exceptional disciple of Christ.

In the Dialogue of the Savior that was written in the 2nd century A.D. it is written that Mary was a great disciple that she knew everything about Jesus. It was hypothesized that the “knowing” of Jesus was in “the biblical sense”. However, it has never been confirmed that this is what was meant in the translation.

In the Gospel of Mary, Peter asks, “Sister, We know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember – which you know but we do not nor have we heard them.” — When Mary speaks openly about what Jesus shares with her, Peter along with the other disciples become angry and jealous saying that Mary, knows nothing and that if these ideas were expressed by Jesus to her that they are crazy ideas.

But Levi speaks up for Mary, “Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.

The words “making her worthy” are translated again and some scholars believe that making a woman worthy means to marry her.

Of course, Mary is said to be the recipient of his secret revelations and private speeches. The Savior, who is not called Jesus in ‘The Gospel of Mary’, even preferred Mary to the other disciples, loving her more than them.

The Gospel of Phillip is probably the non canonical gospel that actually says that Jesus and Mary were an item, in fact if you read the gospel of Phillip it says:

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion” – Gospel of Phillip

And yet another section becomes more suggestive of what the relationship was like:

And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ The Savior answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her?’ When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. Then the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness

Even though the divine feminine values have always been at the core of Christianity, its long history has often been ignored or marginalized and the very thought of the divine feminine is limited only in Marian beliefs that seem to permeate through Catholicism.

Could it be that the divine feminine and the matriarchal power of the goddess was hated so much by the early disciples of the church decided that women and even marriage of Jesus was excised in order to prevent the progress of women throughout the theological hierarchy?

Remember, the Disciples were prone to slandering women – including Mary Magdalene – and demanded that an divine female contributions to Christ’s life be exiled and limited to the non-canonical gospels that can be written off as heresy.

Tracy Twyman, author of ‘The Choice Vine: Mary Magdalene, the Sacred Whore and the Benjimite Inheritance,’ states that the idea that the Magdalene may have actually been the bride of Christ and the mother of his children is now moving away from heresy and is being taken quite seriously amongst the general public, as is the theory that they were the progenitors of the Merovingian kings of France – the so-called “Grail bloodline.”

She goes on to say that there are many reasons why the divine feminine and the influence of Mary in Jesus life could be part of the misogynist views of the early disciples and organizers of the Catholic Church.

Church doctrine held human sexuality to be sinful because of an institutional hatred which held women to be inherently corrupt. They therefore did not want to admit that Christ had any wives or children, but maintained that he had remained chaste his whole life, as had his Virgin mother. The Gospels and the Church also suppressed any knowledge of the high-ranking positions that Mary and other women held in the Jesus movement. The real reason why Mary Magdalene was “written out of the Bible,” and otherwise maligned by the Church, was because she was evidence of the continuation of Jesus’ royal line. Furthermore, who she really was indicated the true meaning of Jesus’ mission. If the truth about Jesus’ marriage to Mary were known, the entire edifice of Rome’s doctrine may very well come tumbling down.” –Tracy Twyman

She suspects that Christ married Mary of Bethany who was a daughter of the tribe of Benjamin which would have been would have been perceived as a source of healing to the people of Israel during their time of misery as an occupied nation.

However, some scholars also connect Mary Magdalene with the same tribe and thus we come full circle with the possibility that Jesus could have taken both women into marriage.

Jesus being married and having children does not change his divinity. So why does the church want to cover up the possibility that Jesus could have been married and had children?

It is Christian blasphemy to claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered a number of children in a continuous “bloodline”. It is probably feared that if there was a direct bloodline or sangral line that it could be exploited and that a doctrine of the second incarnation could provide an arrival of a “messiah” that could be seen as an anti-messiah or antichrist.

It may still be a factor in the drama that exists in the eschaton.

]]> 9
4/21: Boston Strung Up w/ Russ Baker Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:06:50 +0000 Today, the Boston Marathon was held in Massachusetts. While “Boston Strong” is a marketing slogan to capitalize on tragedy, it’s also a hollow battle cry for a city that decided a police state was preferable to Constitution. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes Russ Baker of to the show for the first anniversary […]

(Read more...)




4/21: Boston Strung Up w/ Russ BakerToday, the Boston Marathon was held in Massachusetts. While “Boston Strong” is a marketing slogan to capitalize on tragedy, it’s also a hollow battle cry for a city that decided a police state was preferable to Constitution. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes Russ Baker of to the show for the first anniversary of ‘Boston Strung Up‘!

]]> 4
Boston Strung Up Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:06:33 +0000 BOSTON STRUNG UP Today, the Boston Marathon was held in Massachusetts. This was a milestone for many people because it was the first Boston Marathon that was held one year after two bombs went off at the marathon. This event was called a terrorist attack and since the event, we have been subjected to watching […]

(Read more...)



Boston Strung Up


Today, the Boston Marathon was held in Massachusetts. This was a milestone for many people because it was the first Boston Marathon that was held one year after two bombs went off at the marathon. This event was called a terrorist attack and since the event, we have been subjected to watching a super-liberal authoritarian-worshiping anti-gun media promoting a police state mentality while marketing to a group of people with the slogan “Boston Strong.”

While “Boston Strong” is a marketing slogan to capitalize on tragedy, it is also believed to be some trumped up battle cry that is hollow for a city that decided that a police state was far more preferable in finding suspects that typical police activity.

It first began with reverse 911 calls to residents scaring them about suspects on the loose and that they should “shelter in place” and expect a knock on the door by soldiers that are really police officers and that they should allow any and all searches to find the so-called bombers.

It’s a frightening situation that even the Boston Globe asks these questions in their article, ‘Unease Lingers a Year After Manhunt; Some Still Troubled by Police Tactics in Search for Suspects‘:

Nearly one year after SWAT teams and armored trucks moved through Watertown neighborhoods in search of the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects, some residents who were caught up in the traumatic events last April 19 say authorities still owe them answers.

A year later residents are now questioning the methods of what appeared to be an out-of-control police state action. Many people said they had been traumatized by what happened and they didn’t know how to address the issue at the time , and felt uncomfortable having a conversation about it because they didn’t know how the police would have reacted if they objected to the searches.

Again, the Boston Globe writes:

Early on April 19 last year, four days after two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish line killed three and wounded more than 260, suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev engaged police in a fierce gun battle in Watertown. Tamerlan was killed but his brother, Dzhokhar, escaped and became the subject of an intense manhunt, leading to an areawide shelter-in-place order until he was captured that night in a boat in a Franklin Street backyard.

Now the public is asking for answers, the police chief is saying they are limited to what they can reveal about why they immediately declared martial law while trying to find the suspects.

Regardless of what the media says and what the police are saying, “shelter in place” is a new euphemism for martial law. It was quite simply an open-ended shoot-to-kill curfew, where police searched homes and neighborhoods without a warrant.

In his article, ‘Shelter In Place Or We Will Shoot You,’ Steven Greffenius notes:

Armored vehicles, even tanks rolled through the streets of the city. Helicopters flew overhead. Thousands of armed military people swarmed over the city, in vehicles and on foot.

If you remember a year ago frightened residents were reporting snipers on rooftops and random shootings where bullets would wind up embedded in walls of homes.

While Governor Deval Patrick never made an official shoot-to-kill order of anyone ignoring the “shelter in place” order, it was evident that soldiers were ready to carry out a shoot-to-kill order if it was placed at any time during the operation.

The term “shelter in place” was first used a year ago and gave unwritten permission for military-style police forces to crawl around neighborhoods, set up sniper rifles on roofs and threaten people with death if they just stepped outside their door.

The whole operation, after the botched capture in the early morning, looked like a planned training exercise and now residents are questioning whether not it was and that it was carried out at the expense of the citizens of the United States.

Emergency management personnel in the Boston region had already rehearsed the entire “bomb” scenario before the incident at the Boston marathon, complete with how they would apprehend the suspects with a dragnet that was similar to the police state fashioned “shelter in place” policy.

Prior to the bombing, doctors, nurses, the military, fire and rescue, police authorities, and other social services were alerted to an “urban warfare” exercise that was provided by the National Emergency Planning Evaluation Program.

The program is called “Urban Shield.”

The Atlantic Cities blog wrote in their piece, ‘Boston Is One of the Best Prepared U.S. Cities to Handle a Crisis‘ back on April 19, 2013:

The drills are intended to be strikingly lifelike. Urban Shield has worked with Strategic Operations, a Hollywood effects company that also helps prepare army medics for the battlefield. (Their disaster scenario staff, Baker says, include an amputee.) … their drills aim to force officials to confront both the logistical and atmospheric challenges of a disaster.

This has been used as evidence by those who claim that the Boston Bombing combined both a real-time incident combined with a rehearsed ‘Urban Shield’ operation that conveniently ended at 7:00 PM. Some claim that was enough time for the military units to end operations, lift the curfew and have dinner with their families.

Most of the armed forces inexplicably stood down two hours or more before police found Dzhokar Tsarnaev hidden in a boat in Watertown. Does that point to a possible simultaneous drill and real-time situation where martial law would be declared and carried out because it was part of the ‘Urban Shield’ blueprint?

Various military units were needlessly deployed in Boston, including members of the Massachusetts National Guard. Now, how was it that the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 was overturned in Watertown? Simple it was probably labeled an exercise or drill.

So the “Boston Strong” were strung along and later strung up as they were victims of an exercise that was carried out during a real-time manhunt.

After the bombing, all military and police operations fell under “public safety exception,” because President Obama issued an Emergency declaration on April 17th, 2013. This way the authorities did not have to detail any of their operations at any time to the media. They did not have to disclose what was merely an exercise was and what was real-time.

This explains a lot of things including the lifting of the Miranda Rule for the captured suspects in the name of a “public safety exception” and a possible classified “Urban Shield” exercise being secretly carried out by the National Emergency Planning Evaluation Program.

This could and probably explain why several conspiracy theory sites have pointed out that what was seen in the video footage appeared to be crisis actors and other personnel that appeared to be with either a paid security agency or with the security apparatus in place to observe reaction to events in real time.

Now it is important to understand that there was no declaration of martial law made by the president and the use of the military to find the terror suspects should raise all sorts of legal red flags.

The Stafford Act, which defines what the Federal Emergency Management Agency can actually do, says that if FEMA needs to evacuate an area that it should be a “non-military” operation.

Boston Marathon Bombings: the Emergency Declaration as a State of Exception’ by Philippe Theophanidis” breaks it down like this:

On one hand, it spe­cifies that the evac­u­ation of ci­vilian pop­u­la­tion should be “non-​military”. On the other hand, it states that “passive de­fense reg­u­la­tions” can be pre­scribed either by mil­itary or civil au­thor­ities.1 Interestingly, the Act also au­thor­ized the President to utilize the re­sources of the Department of Defense ―if he de­term­ines that such re­sources are needed―for a max­imum period of 10 days.

Legally, it has not been determined if the “shelter in place” was voluntary or mandatory. This would raise the argument that the people of Massachusetts were actually intimidated or forced into participating in a needless “exercise” and not a legal and mandatory lockdown.

The governor asked people to “shelter in place” but did not mention consequences or sanctions if the order was ignored. It was only implied through intimidation that anyone not participating would be detained, arrested or shot.

It could be said that the mainstream media actually reported that a mandatory lockdown was in place – which implies consequences – even though there were none mentioned and 9,000 troops marching through neighborhoods with loaded guns in people’s faces also implied that lethal force would be used if residents did not stay in their homes.

After a year it is interesting to point out that while only a handful of residents are now speaking out about the weirdness of the events, there has not been a huge outcry over the legalities and illegalities of the operation and whether or not the people of Boston were needlessly held hostage for an urban warfare drill.

In fact after the so called apprehension of the suspects, there was a celebration and the slogan ‘Boston Strong’ became a hollow marketing scam to sell T-shirts and to raise money for more security at events like the Boston Marathon.

The question that should be asked is: Why did the public spontaneously agree to unlawful search and seizure? The compelling argument is that they were intimidated to do so and that this activity would be illegal and unconstitutional.

It is also a compelling thought that whatever happens in the United States with regard to public safety, there is no longer a moment where the police or the military should step back and evaluate the situation. There is no longer a time where the President has to declare an emergency. We are slowly losing our freedoms to the police state because we now have the attitude that whatever the military does or police do it has an air of pre-legitimacy.

Any foregone conclusion of logic or constitutional right means nothing now, because we have already accepted the United States as a battlefield where terrorists do their heinous acts.

Whatever actions the police or the military take will come across as justified, based solely on the value and assessment of threat.

That is why there are some people who will say that a whole city on lockdown was not necessary to apprehend one suspect. While others will say that it was justified because we were bombarded with the media’s threat assessment and the President’s emergency declaration and the police with their so-called “public safety exception.”

It was enough of a psy-op to welcome any and all artillery into the neighborhood to find one suspect.

Is this an example of ‘Boston Strong‘?

Perhaps it would be more truthful to call it ‘Boston Cooperative’ or ‘Boston Passive.’ How about ‘Boston Intimidated’ or ‘Boston Bullied’?

Quite simply, Boston was mislead, strung along, threatened and coerced into participating in a mass urban warfare drill that was used in tandem with a police dragnet.

The people of Massachusetts had their Fourth Amendment violated.

Private property is an unalienable right in the United States guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The search of a private property by the military or even the police usually requires a warrant delivered by the judicial branch of the government.

It is evident that what we saw last year were the first indications of what can be done during an internal civil war. As we are seeing the same intimidation happening with private property rights in Nevada and now in Texas, it seems that Americans submit under exigent circumstances, but respond with militias and loaded guns when circumstances do not seem so exceptional.

This is a chilling reality, because if the government wants something bad enough they would have to create or even tempt these types of exigent circumstances in order to get the American people to submit to whatever they wish.

This means several “Pearl Harbor”-style events are going to be very useful for the complete abolition of constitutional rights in America.

Perhaps in the future we will see that these events are not just random acts of evil, but thoroughly planned by those who need an excuse for full-spectrum control.

]]> 6
4/18: Forever 21 w/ Deborah Tavares Sat, 19 Apr 2014 01:06:51 +0000 ‘Future Earth’ planning is the idea of implementing Agenda 21 forever. For some it will be the new American agenda, for others it will be the jackboot kicking down your door, forcing you out of your home and making you a refugee on your own planet. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes Deborah Tavares […]

(Read more...)




4/18: Forever 21 w/ Deborah Tavares‘Future Earth’ planning is the idea of implementing Agenda 21 forever. For some it will be the new American agenda, for others it will be the jackboot kicking down your door, forcing you out of your home and making you a refugee on your own planet. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis welcomes Deborah Tavares back to the show for a Friday night at ‘Forever 21: New American Agenda‘!

]]> 1
Forever 21: New American Agenda Sat, 19 Apr 2014 01:01:36 +0000 FOREVER 21: NEW AMERICAN AGENDA It is a fact that if anyone decides that they want to do any investigative research on Agenda 21 they will find that many environmentalist websites tend to report how it is a stupid conspiracy theory and that the notion that there will be a jackbooted green police waiting to […]

(Read more...)



Forever 21: New American Agenda


It is a fact that if anyone decides that they want to do any investigative research on Agenda 21 they will find that many environmentalist websites tend to report how it is a stupid conspiracy theory and that the notion that there will be a jackbooted green police waiting to take your property is just outrageous.

One particular website that jeers the conspiracy theories is Slate, providing an article from a website called “One Earth” in their article, ‘Agenda 21: No, The Government isn’t Going to Confiscate Your Property‘.

In its opening paragraph we read:

Pssst! Have you heard about Agenda 21? The secret plot to collectivize private property—hatched by United Nations internationalists and midwifed by operatives ensconced within our own government—all in the name of “ending sprawl” and “encouraging sustainability”? The seizure of suburban homes by jackbooted, gun-toting U.N. thugs? The involuntary relocation of displaced suburbanites to cramped dwellings in densely packed cities?

No? Seriously? You haven’t heard about any of this?

It goes on to make fun of people who have been warning Americans that there is a plot by the government to seize property and to move American citizens into the big cities. It cites the ‘black helicopter crowd‘ as being paranoid and that the “green helmets” won’t be seizing property anytime soon and that the conspiracy theorists claim that it is part of a secret plot to rid the planet of human beings in order to achieve global sustainability.

The article that was published by Jeff Turrentine is a smear and shaming piece that redeems the “Future Earth” fanatics and marginalizes those who worry that they may become refugees in their own country if the feds or even the United Nations decide to take property rights away from the United States citizens.

The article was written a long time before we knew who Cliven Bundy was or before Harry Reid compared the actions of the militias at the Bunkerville Ranch with the Boston Marathon bombers and before the actions of Frazier Glen Miller, a known neo-Nazi that went on a shooting spree at a Jewish center in Kansas City.

Back in July of 2011 I reported that the UN was proposing the idea of creating an environmental security force, known as the “green helmets” to intervene in conflicts caused by resource depletion in rural and remote regions of the world. The green helmets will be a “green” or environmental police that will enforce resource distribution in countries where food, water and other resources are scarce.

Now, the media has been buzzing about what has been happening with Cliven Bundy, and yet there are many stories about how the military an or the federal government have forced citizens out of their homes without giving them dime one of compensation for their inconvenience. One example is the CANAMEX highway that was being planned for an area of Arizona 70 miles southeast of Phoenix.

In writing about North American trade corridors, notes:

Canamex is a planned four-lane highway extending from Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta, in Canada. The project has recently received the support of a certain number of states and provinces including Arizona, Sonora and Alberta. The Canadian Government is providing financial support for the building of the North South Trade Corridor in Alberta, the Canadian section of Canamex. The U.S. Congress has designated the completion of Canamex as a high priority in the American road system. Canamex currently uses Highway I-15 in the United States. The external relations secretariat of Mexico has taken on the promotion of the project.

Now, Dave Hodges has reported that the CANAMEX highway is an Agenda 21 project and that I-15 runs adjacent to the Bundy property. Now say what you will about Chinese solar farm interests, Harry Reid and his son Rory – but the CANAMEX corridor is a vital project for the so called North American Union and The Chinese control of both new energy sources and even Military installations near these proposed

Hodges reports in his article, ‘The Bundy Affair Is The Tip of The Iceberg To What’s Coming‘:

It is time to connect the dots on one leg of this land grab in Nevada. The I-15 Canamex Highway runs adjacent to the planned theft of the Bundy property. In this location, a new Agenda 21 land designation is emerging and it is called a “Solar Energy Zone”. Solar Energy Zones will connect the variables of the Canamex, the evisceration of private property rights, land use delineated in the Agenda 21 Wildlands, the control of all transportation corridors within the United States and the ultimate betrayal, the Chinese control of all military bases in the United States.

How do I know this? First, I have lived through the same resource theft, property rights grab with the Canamex. Additionally, in Arizona, we are also establishing a solar farm system that has all the hallmark traits of what is going on at the Bundy property. The Arizona state government is cooperating with various federal agencies to build a massive solar farm 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Arizona solar project is located adjacent to Luke AFB flight operations and it is near another energy resource, the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

He also reports that 300 homeowners were asked to leave their homes because the government needed water in order to operate the CANAMEX international multimodal hub. They could not have 300 residents in a rural area put a drain on the reservoir that was nearby. John McCain convinced local politicians to legislate against the residents that lived near the Arizona hub and stripped them of all their property rights in an attempt to force them out over a period of time without compensating them for the loss of their homes.

This puts a lot of what is happening with the Nevada land grab into perspective.

If you want to read about proposed Agenda 21 ‘energy zones’, the Bureau of Land Management has produced this dated March of 2014:

According to the introduction:

“In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

“The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

Also, B. Christopher Agee reports in his article, ‘Obama Accused By Congressman Of Illegal Action At Bundy Ranch‘:

After the federal Bureau of Land Management agents backed down from their intimidating stance at the Bundy Ranch last weekend, ample evidence has surfaced indicating the standoff between the government and the Nevada ranching family is far from over. Throughout the weeklong stalemate, members of the Bundy family were physically assaulted by armed officers, numerous cows were shot dead, and protesters faced threats of gunfire for merely expressing their outrage.

As far as I can see, no agent of the BLM was harmed in the incident.

In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.

Here are the letters:
Letter page 1
Letter Page 2
I got in touch with Deborah Tavarez after she returned from the Bundy ranch and she related to me that what we are seeing with the Bundy standoff and what we will see with future standoffs and run-ins is an effort by pundits of “Future Earth” and Agenda 21 with the aid of the banks and corrupt politicians to push for different ‘forbidden zones‘ all over the United States.

If you want to be enlightened you may want to check out an article published on Forbes called “Earth’s Future Forbidden Zones” where UN planners intend to restrict your lifestyle to postpone the supposed coming environmental apocalypse.

Many of the global sustainability fear mongers have been pushing the agenda that the world is doomed and that they have the answers to combat or avoid an ‘extinction level event‘.

The concept of ‘Earth’s Future Forbidden Zones‘ is not new. Agenda 21 has been championing a similar concept that they claim is there to protect the planet from the people. While many people believe that the United Nations Agenda 21 ‘sustainable development’ plan, is plan to cull the populace for sustainable development, there is more to it than just the elimination of useless eaters. It is also a plan to control all land use for full-spectrum control.

The statistics of land ownership and the ability for the BLM to create forbidden zones will most certainly create more Bundy ranch-type stand-offs in the future.

As reports, “The BLM (Bureau of Land Management) wields power over about 460 million acres of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States of America.

Percent of land in western states under BLM public lands management:

Nevada 84.5 percent
Utah 57.4 percent
Oregon 53.1 percent
Idaho 50.2 percent
Arizona 48.1 percent
Wyoming 42.4 percent
California 45.3 percent
Colorado 36.6 percent
New Mexico 41.8 percent
Those in the camp of “global sustainability” believe that people are not good stewards of their own land and that the government will do a better job of land management if they have control of property. The right of the individual or of the sovereign no longer applies, according the ‘Future Earth’ planners. Individual rights and individual property rights will give way to the needs of the community and, in some cases, the needs of the military industrial complex.

Programs like the Wildlands Project are programs that indicate that most of the land should be set aside for non-humans.

As informs, “The Wildlands Project came out of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity the year before Agenda 21 was adopted at the 1992 U.N. Rio Summit.

Sustainability encompasses all things environmental – including global warming, climate change and alternative energy.

The fear mongering that has been created by ‘Future Earth’ planners is actually an apocalyptic blueprint that sets that timetable between now and 2050.

The ‘Future Earth’ proposal explains that the population is exploding, wild species are endangered, the environment is degrading and the costs of resources from oil and water will be going up.

Therefore it is believed that the government has the wisdom to use the land to benefit future generations.

In the Club of Rome’s published document, “The First Global Revolution,” it states:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples… All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

I think this summarizes why Harry Reid made the outrageous claim that those who defended the Bundy ranch were “domestic terrorists.”

In a war for sustainability, ‘we the people’ are the enemy if we stand in the way of their “Future Earth” agendas.

As the global planners hook you with “climate change” and the socially engineered “saving the planet from the environmental cataclysmic model,” we could very well see in the future an urgency to justify laws requiring people to be forced from their homes and lands because of some trumped up crisis that needs to be averted.

Tariq Banuri, the director of the U.N.’s Division for Sustainable Development, says: “Agenda 21 is not a binding treaty. It sets out a sort of common vision.

However, the common vision is for the elites and not the average American. The common vision they speak of will be implemented through patterns of force, coercion, intimidation, and deadly force.

‘Future Earth’ planning is the idea of implementing Agenda 21 forever. For some it will be the new American agenda, for others it will be the jackboot knocking on your door with back up artillery, forcing you out of your home, making you a refugee on your own planet.

]]> 6