It's extremely unhealthy as it's aluminum based nanoparticles that are breathed in and cause, among other things, neuro problems into ADD, learning disorders, Alzheimers..all of these have greatly increased since the spraying began.
An FBI Chief who spoke about the program online was murdered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy8dDCvCoBc
1) Film about Chemtrails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2x6TEeknfo
2) Website: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/#
3) Another award winning documentary on Chemtrails "geo-engineering" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9VcWkFrXWY
4) A government insider who thought is was consipiracy talk until he checked it out. Starts off slow but very interesting background re the man she interviews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRPWX3mhrEo (note 4 parts)
5) Global March Against Geoengineering/Chemtrails
Edie Adelstein wrote: “OK, not to get all weird on everyone, but I have a major fear of dying. I think about it a lot, and wonder about what the great hereafter is actually like. My best guess is that it's probably just nothing (I'm not religious in any kind of way), but I'll be the first to admit I don't know, and how could I, anyway?...I'm not counting on Google to "solve death" in my lifetime.”
Well, the good news is that Google doesn't have to: it's already been done. But not by any so-called “Soul Passage Midwife” or other such charlatan. Instead, we have the word of the holiest, most enlightened man who ever lived - the Son of God himself - Jesus Christ. If you would like to have your fear of death removed, the following passages show the way:
Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one can come to the Father except through me.” – John 14:6
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” – John 3:36
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:31
“Very truly I [Jesus] tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” – John 5:24
“But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to those who are lost, whose unbelieving minds the god of this world hath blinded, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” – 2 Corinthians 4:3-5
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” – Ephesians 2: 8-9
“In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind...The Word became flesh and lived among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God ” – John 1 (selections)
And don't listen to false teachers such as “Soul Passage Midwives” and other New Age deceivers. About such liars the Bible warns us:
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” --2 Timothy 4:3
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” – 1 Corinthians 1:18
“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God...and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” – Jude 1:4
Why stop at queer? Colorado College forgot to include the categories of bestial, pedophile, and scat-fetishist (among others) on its job applications. That way we can know the particular sexual deviancy of all students.
You have to wonder why the gender question is asked at all.
When I hire someone I look at the depth, breadth, and quality of their resume - what they write on the company-provided application form is seldom seen and completely irrelevant.
And, for the clearest take on Mikey's stand, regarding the USAFA oath:
For those with a sense of truth and humor, here's a fresh take on Klingenschmitt, who is now running for political office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNDnd4Ly2OU. Start at 11:16, to focus in on the portion exclusively about him. His lies and extremism are illustrated with his own words and actions, there. And he's the chaplain suing Mikey Weinstein.
Let's put this in its proper perspective in one sentence, by saying that queer refers to 'gender queer' which means a transgender person who does not need nor want gender corrective surgery.
How do I know this? I am the Senior Director of Planet Maz Radio Limited, which provides news, information and support for transpeople, the people in their lives and everyone else who needs to know the truth, which means everyone.
FYI - I am a transsexual woman who will be undergoing gender corrective surgery in the next couple of months. I am also well studied and well versed in the subject of transgenderism
Well, it was only as easy as pulling teeth, but you finally submitted, Mr. Anothergrad! You finally spit out a bloody citation which will purportedly back up all of your blather. Now point us to the actual interview that demonstrates Michael Weinstein did not receive death threats as a cadet, was not assaulted twice and hospitalized once. Point us to the interview where he threatens someone's, anyone's life because they dared disagree with his definition of proselytizing.
Mr. Anothergrad, you ask me, "You had to look up his [Michael Weinstein's] comments about Dobson and Haggard?" First, I would never rely solely on my memory. I like to be thorough, as I wrote you once before. Second, I am not so arrogant as to expect anyone to take my unsupported word, so I provide a citation. You, on the other hand, seem to have the quaint notion that backing up words with proof is a sign of ignorance. Who do you think you are fooling with all this unctuous bluster?
Mr. Anothergrad, after your poor performance here in this blog I doubt anyone trusts anything you say at all. All you can offer is the smarmy assurance that you have done the research on Michael Weinstein to your own satisfaction and the arrogant assertion that the rest of us should be satisfied to take your word for it.
You refuse to back up your snide remarks and prejudiced opinions. Yet you have the gall to whine when I refrain from joining you in a hypothetical discussion. "(Mr K won't answer)..." I said at the outset of this thread that I was interested in making it and keeping it real, although I can appreciate your desperate desire to change the subject to some hypothetical situation, as reality has not left you with a leg to stand on.
@Anothergrad, your interpretation of Willoughby's email stands in stark contrast to the direct quote out of that very email by @aveteran. Why is that?
@Anothergrad, don't you remember the live nuclear warheads which were flown WITHOUT ORDERS from Minot AFB, ND, to Barksdale AFB, LA -- all the way across our nation?!
Google it. And, while you're at it, google the nuclear detonators which were "ACCIDENTLY" shipped TO TAIWON, Republic of CHINA, a year and a half earlier, and not discovered for TWO YEARS -- that is, the detonators were discovered six months after the live nukes were flown across country WITHOUT ORDERS.
Now, what were you saying about Obama? Oh, that's right: It's beside the point -- the point I was making. It was muddying the waters.
Brain Logic, Obama is the Commander in Chief of the DoD and is THE person in charge of ordering nuclear missile deployments you refer to in your scenario. No one can launch a nuclear weapon until Obama provides both the authorization and the codes required to do so. He is directly at the top of the chain of command of every single member of the US military. Introducing him into the discussion isn't muddying the waters. He is in charge of the waters. And as a side note, when he took his oath of office, he concluded it by saying, "so help me God".
As for Weinstein's purvue, he has declared himself at war with "a small subset of evangelical Christianity – about 12.6% of the American public, about 38 million Americans." One of his most recent lawsuits threats was against Michelle Bachmann. Based on his own words and actions, Weinstein's "withering field of fire" is a lot broader than the DoD.
As far as looking up things about Weinstein, I have very specifically encouraged people to do exactly that. I don't expect people to take my word for it. Becoming informed about a topic takes work. But just to give folks a bit of a headstart, here's the place I'd recommend starting... http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/me… You can read every interview Weinstein has ever given on his efforts. Interesting reading to say the least.
Finally, from my very first comments regarding this article, I have defended both Willoughby's and Weinstein's right to free speech. That was my initial point, and my final point.
For anyone still following this thread, allow me to introduce a scenario: Let's say, instead of an athletic trainer, the person so intent on putting his religious beliefs ahead of his oath to defend the Constitution is in charge of ordering nuclear missile deployments. And, let's say, he has a dream or daydream or religious hallucination which he believes, with all his heart, is Jesus Christ telling him the time for Armageddon is now, and he has been hand picked to get the ball rolling.
Do you think he will ask up his chain of command, first, for permission?
@Anothergrad: Obama is not in the DoD, he is above the DoD, so he falls outside Weinstein's purview, with regard to lawsuits. Bringing him into this is a muddy-the-waters tactic.
Weinstein sued that chaplain you mention because the chaplain used "imprecatory prayer" to transmit a plea to his followers to murder Weinstein, his wife, and the rest of his family -- exactly the sort of crime judges tend to throw out of court until after the murder/assassination occurs, proving the point.
Perhaps you should have named the chaplain, so others can look him up. It's Klingenschmitt. As a matter of fact, Klingenschmitt was ousted from the military for bad behavior before Weinstein became an issue. Maybe that's why you didn't name him, after all.
As for Willoughby, Weinstein will, as is proper, give the military time and chance to properly manage the situation or to prove that proper management will not occur. Then, if/when the latter is evident, I expect he will sue. This time, it will be harder for a judge to say, "If you are right, Mr. Weinstein, then I will agree with you, but I cannot tell who is right, you or the USAFA, so I will just side with the USAFA, and give them the benefit of the doubt." That, of course, is a paraphrase, not a quote, per se.
Brain Logic, Barack Obama discusses his Christian faith and his faith in Jesus. Openly. On the record. In public. Is he proselytizing when he does that? If so, it might be time to file a lawsuit against him.
I believe Willoughby is a civilian. At least no military rank is mentioned. But even if he's military, he can still discuss his personal religious beliefs. And attend church services in uniform.
It is very clear on this website that people are very confused about what is legal in this country regarding religious expression. I've said it before and I'll say it again...if Willoughby violated a law with his email to Weinstein, than Weinstein has an easy lawsuit he might actually win on his hands. Does anyone (Mr K won't answer) believe Weinstein should file one?
Mr. K, you are trying to defend a man you obviously know very little about. You had to look up his comments about Dobson and Haggard? You are only aware of ONE lawsuit Weinstein has lost? Do yourself a favor. And don't ask me to do it for you. You obviously don't trust anything I say. Do a little work and dig into Weinstein's record. Do you know he is currently being sued by a retired military chaplain who he threatened to "beat the (*^* out of in an alley behind a Safeway"? Weinstein had already had his own lawsuit against the chaplain thrown out of court when it become obvious that he (Weinstein) had lied about the allegations he made against the chaplain. But again, don't ask me to do your homework. I already am aware of his background. That is why I have formed the opinion about him that I have. It's an educated opinion. One based on facts. I challenge you to do the same thing.
Brain Logic, you have hit the nail right on the head. Willoughby is indeed "psychologically unbalanced, to say the least." Willoughby is a crackpot who thinks he can earn brownie points with God toward a seat in heaven by brow-beating "unbelievers" like Michael Weinstein. The academy may issue statements denying that Willoughby will be disciplined, but that is just a standard legal disclaimer. To discipline Willoughby is to acknowledge misconduct; to acknowledge misconduct leaves the academy open to lawsuits. The academy will certainly discipline him quietly for sending provocative email to Weinstein even if they do not care what he actually does at work.
According to Wikipedia:
"Weinstein has clashed frequently with leaders in the Evangelical community such as James Dobson and Ted Haggard, whom Weinstein challenged to a fistfight after an e-mail exchange between the two was leaked. (Mikey's Mission, Colorado Springs Independent, March 2, 2006)" [Citation from Wikipedia.]
Mr. Anothergrad, you do indeed have this fact on your side, so I must ask myself why you have not cited it yourself, why you left it for me to publish it for you. Perhaps because the bare facts do not quite convey the lurid impression you want to create with your pretentious pronunciamento, "He doesn't threaten physical violence and death against people he disagrees with of his strong pure moral convictions."
In fact, he does not threaten physical violence at all. He challenged Ted Haggard to a fist fight. A challenge is not a threat. He has not threatened "people he disagrees with"--just one person, and not because of their disagreement, but because that person leaked an email exchange that Weinstein considered private.
Please allow me for a moment to be just as snide you can be, Mr. Anothergrad, and point out that the person you are defending, Ted Haggard, was an infamous religious bigot and hypocrite who was caught in a sex and drug scandal.
Now I have looked it up, Mr. Anothergrad, and I do not wonder that you were reluctant to disclose the actual facts. Now it is time for you to put up or shut up. Please give us a citation for your claim that Michael Weinstein has ever threatened "death against people he disagrees with."
In conclusion, you cast aspersions on Weinstein's "strong pure moral convictions"--based on your own exaggerated mis-characterization of his actions--as if yours were a logical, well-founded, and inescapable conclusion, as if there were no such thing as righteous anger in this world. Wikipedia says, "Even some of Weinstein's allies have acknowledged that he can be 'over the top' and 'hell-raising', though they defend his behavior as being what is needed. (Marching as to War, the Washington Post)." [Citation from Wikipedia.]
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation