LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
Latest Posts
A green tide sweeps Canberra
On 4th July 2011 the Greens will control nine seats in the Federal Senate, giving them the balance of power and ushering in a new era of enviro-politics.
Tonight Josh Jackson and I wade into the battle over carbon taxes and attempt to restore some sanity to the debate.
In particular we take a look at the influence of socialism on the Greens, with former communist Lee Rhiannon now in the Senate (hence the watermelon image above). Rhiannon was a member of the hard line Socialist Party of Australia which continued to support the Soviets after the brutal supression of the Prague uprising in 1968.
From The Australian:
Ms Rhiannon was also involved in a public spat over her communist past with author Mark Aarons after he published his account of his parents' prominent involvement in the pro-Moscow Communist Party of Australia. The CPA split from Moscow after Soviet tanks crushed the Prague Spring moves for "socialism with a human face" in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the same year a new spirit of liberty swept the Western world.
Aarons wrote that Ms Rhiannon and her parents left the CPA to join the Socialist Party of Australia, which continued to support the Soviets.
Ms Rhiannon claimed in a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald that she "joined the 1968 protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia."
But in a letter of his own, Aarons attacked Ms Rhiannon's "astonishing" attempt "to deny the facts in the book about the views and activities of her parents".
"Rhiannon also joined the SPA, whose main rationale was to support the invasion and the Soviet Union generally," he wrote.
"Rhiannon's refusal to condemn the invasion (and the shooting of Polish workers) is recorded in the University of NSW student newspaper Tharunka (1972). Denial will not alter the facts."
In the second half we present the annals of Charlie Veitch - an "ex-truther" who had a spiritual revelation on the road to New York City (all expenses paid by the BBC) which made him realise that his conspiracy theories were wrong and stupid and why he should trust Big Government.
We take a look at the psyops aspects of Mr. Veitch's conversion to the official view of 9/11, and what the BBC is trying to achieve.
Related Links
Recent Comments
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.
What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?
Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?
By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?
By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett,
after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.
So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.
1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?
2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?
3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?
If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.
Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.
By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh Anonymous,
You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.
By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.