This is a MUST SEE video for anyone who wants to know just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

After watching this, you will see that this goes much deeper than what most people previously thought. THIS IS A WORLD-WIDE OPERATION.

If you want to download this video, or pretty much any other video, I suggest using this site: https://savethevideo.net You can paste links to this site, and have an option to download the video. Very useful to keep important videos from being "memory holed."

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The media have been parroting that the biolabs in Ukraine were "misinformation," but now we know that they are real. Not only that, officials within the US government are "...quite concerned that the 'reasearch materials' might fall into the hands of Russian forces."

Here is Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) to tell you about the secret biolabs in Ukraine.

If you listen ahead to Rubio's next question he asks, "If there's a biological or chemical weapons incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that it would be 100% the Russians that would be behind it?" to which Nuland replies, "There is no doubt in my mind senator. It's classic Russian technique..."

Really, so the Russians are so good that they can get the US to fund biolabs in Ukraine, so that they can then go in and release bioweapons -- right on their own border?

The whole thing is absurd. But what's more absurd, is trying to explain it away in this manner.

Now there's this from the (World Health Organization) the W.H.O.

WHO health emergencies director Dr. Mike Ryan: "The conditions we see in Ukraine are the worst possible ingredients for the amplification and the spread of infectious disease.”

An outbreak is "one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse,” he added.

Who talks like this? Who claims that they are more worried about the spread of disease in Ukraine than bombs and bullets -- when there's a war going on? This is an odd thing to say.

But that's what makes me ask the question. Maybe WHO health emergencies director Dr. Mike Ryan knows something that we don't, and I have to put it out there. Considering that the US knew far ahead of time that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, why didn't they move the biological materials -- that they are so worried about? Why would you leave them there -- unless you want something to "happen" to them?

Now that we know that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan China, why then wouldn't we assume that the next pandemic will come from Ukraine, where the US government is funding more "secret" biolabs? And, why then wouldn't we assume this is the desired outcome? After all, they failed to secure the materials before a predicted invasion.

To attempt to game this to the next level, is it possible that the one of the labs in the Ukraine already released something? Pay very close attention to the timeline of events.

Russia invaded Ukraine on the 24th February, about 5 am. As of this writing, it's been (14) days since Russia invaded Ukraine. It could take a month or so before enough people would become infected with a virus and show symptoms -- before anyone could catch on. We need to keep our eyes peeled because when you have people at the W.H.O. talking about, "one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse," you might want to keep your eyes peeled.

Regardless of what happens, the US has already set the stage to blame any possible "outbreak" on the Russians.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I was looking at election results the other day when I noticed something. I noticed that there was an interesting difference in the number of votes, when compared to the percentage of votes that had been counted. Let's take a look at the numbers.

The number of Republican votes vs. Democrat votes is pretty significant. If you ask me the Democrat candidates are not generating a lot of buzz. Not good turnout.

Let's see what the totals are for Republican vs. Democrat, including all of the candidates.

That's a pretty big difference. The voter turnout for the primaries is almost 2:1. I can't see that being a good sign for democrats in Texas. Comparing this to the 2020 election, and it's looking pretty bad for Democrats.

The race for governor of Texas shouldn't even be close. We'll just have to watch and see.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Shirley Ann Jackson has a very distinguished past.

For the entirety of my adult life, I have been intricately involved in researching the basis of new technologies. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I conducted research that contributed to the understanding of electronic and optoelectronic materials used in semiconductor lasers that are now part of many devices. As a professor of physics at Rutgers University, I was fortunate to be able to teach undergraduate and graduate students, conduct groundbreaking research, and supervise Ph.D. candidates who would go on to find solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.

I served as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a role to which I was appointed by President Bill Clinton, where I initiated a strategic assessment that put the agency on a more businesslike footing. As a member of President Barack Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), I advised the White House on policies in many areas of science, technology, and innovation. From 2014 to 2017, I was cochair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

These leadership roles across the technology industry, academia, and government have given me unique perspective and insight. What I have learned is that it is only through the mobilization of all three, acting in concert in an innovation ecosystem, that we can meet the biggest challenges of today and tomorrow.

"All three" being Big Tech, Academia, and Government.

While there is some truth to this, the question is why? Why does innovation "require" the help of government? Wouldn't companies chase after innovation for market based reason?

The 1960s space program is the best example of this. You had The Space Race, under the direction of US President John F. Kenned, people from all different arenas of science were working towards a common goal. To land on the moon. This is one of the few times that government paired with private industry to achieve something great. Here's what Kennedy said to congress.

These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength, as well as our convictions, have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

... if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. ... Now it is time to take longer strides – time for a great new American enterprise – time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth.

... Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own.

... I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

... Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action—a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62—an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

John F. Kennedy,
Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961

But there's a stark difference in mindsets from then to now. The main difference being that nothing the government is proposing at this time actually benefits the American People. Instead it benefits a leftist ideological goal, of fewer workers, and Universal Basic Income.

The Biden regime shutdown the Keystone XL Pipeline, because they were "worried about the environment." But there are two problems there. The fuel will still move, at much greater cost, and by truck, which increases the chances of a spill.

While being so worried about the environment, the Biden regime supported waiving sanctions on Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline because, "it’s almost completely finished." So, pipelines are bad (for the environment) when they're in the US, but they're great when they're in Russia?

This is why having the government involved in "innovation" is a bad idea. The people who wish to drive innovation in the arena of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) are not doing it for the betterment of society. All of the people involved in the race for AI have an agenda that's far removed from what most people might invision.

Look at it this way. When computers were first introduced into the business environment, they were supposed to make work easier for employees. Most remember thinking that they will be able to get more work done, making their workload lighter. But the exact opposite happened. Instead business realized that they could get the work of 10 people from one person using a computer. So they reduced their workforce(s) and hired people who were good at operating computers.

The race for AI is no different. It's posed as an "us vs. them" type of situation, the first country to moderately perfect AI will rule the world! Similar to the space race, only there's little connection there. The people behind the AI push are those who wish to replace humans, and replace the human labor force with machines. This can be found easily through their conferences. That's why Elon Musk supports a basic living wage, because he envisions machines replacing most of the labor jobs over the coming years.

Now you know why they are trying to teach kids to "code" so badly. Because they don't expect there to be many skilled labor jobs in the future, because machines will be doing those jobs.

At this point in time, would you trust government (think Biden regime) teaming up with private industry in an effort to advance AI -- for the good of everyone? Do you really think that AI will help the American People, or is it more likely that it will help to progress a leftist ideological goal?

Considering the government's ridiculous track record with the COVID pandemic, would you trust them with AI?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I'm surprised that more people haven't heard about this, but apparently it's been in the works for some time.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two companies seeking to build thousands of miles of pipeline across the Midwest are promising the effort will aid rather than hinder the fight against climate change, though some environmental groups remain skeptical.

The pipelines would stretch from North Dakota to Illinois, potentially transforming the Corn Belt into one of the world’s largest corridors for a technology called carbon capture and storage.

Environmental activists and landowners have hindered other proposed pipelines in the region that pump oil, carrying carbon that was buried in the earth to engines or plants where it is burned and emitted. The new projects would essentially do the opposite by capturing carbon dioxide at ethanol refineries and transporting it to sites where it could be buried thousands of feet underground.

Despite concerns from Raffensperger and others about potential leaks from the pipelines or storage sites, the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that storing carbon dioxide is safe as long as companies do it carefully. It is injected in a liquefied state into porous rock formations, where it eventually dissolves or hardens into minerals.

While this all sounds plausible, and more like a "possible solution" to the problem that environmentalists claim exists. There's another problem. How to capture the carbon? Elon Musk helped with that effort, by investing in a competition.

On Wednesday, Stieghorst and her Accelerated Carbonate Ion Dissolution and Dispersal (ACIDD) student team members—Isabella Arosemena, Zach Berkowitz, Jeanette Betke, Isabelle Fitzpatrick, Anwar Khan, Eden Leder, Nancy Lewis, and Drew Rich—learned their work had paid off. XPRIZE announced that ACIDD is one of five student projects awarded $100,000 to advance Musk’s goal of removing 1 billion tons of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere.

Now, Stieghorst, who is graduating in December with a degree in ecosystems science and policy, acknowledges that the hard work really begins. “I am over the moon,” she said. “I had so much confidence in the solution that I imagined this happening. But everything we did was theoretical. So, now we have to prove the idea works in the real world and at scale.”

The ACIDD proposal was based on a process developed by Rau, the chief technology officer and co-founder of Planetary Hydrogen, a carbon-capture startup. The process generates a low-carbon form of alkalinity using waste products from mining, water, and renewable electricity, and harvesting valuable byproducts such as hydrogen—a key ingredient to a decarbonized energy system. When added to the ocean, the alkalinity enhances the ocean’s uptake of CO₂ from the air while countering local ocean acidification.

“Essentially, it’s like one big Alka Seltzer,” Stieghorst said. “When the tablet dissolves in water, it can neutralize acid. Distributing this liquid in the ocean will have a similar effect—and speed up a natural part of the geologic carbon cycle that takes thousands of years. Accelerating it to human-time scales can safely lock away our anthropogenic carbon emissions for more than 100,000 years.”

The partnership is one that Langdon, who studies the biology and ecology of corals, said could expand important research in the future. “Corals are a super delicate organism,” he said. “If we can show that we can add the Planetary Hydrogen product to the water and it doesn’t injure the health of the corals—or even enhances their health—that could go a long way in convincing people that a larger-scale experiment would be safe to try.”

This couldn't possibly go wrong right? One group wants to bury the CO2 in the ground, the other group wants to create a solid CO2 substance and dump it in the ocean.

Pumping the CO2 in the ground doesn't sound so bad, until you find out where they want to do it. The result is "transforming the Corn Belt into one of the world’s largest corridors for a technology called carbon capture and storage." Is it will destroy/repurpose farmland to capture carbon? Reducing the countries ability to produce corn doesn't sound like a good idea to me. We're immigrating people at an alarming rate, and those people have to eat. Repurposing crucial farmland to capture carbon sounds unwise.

Then, you have to consider who owns a lot of this land.

Bill Gates has never been a farmer. So why did the Land Report dub him “Farmer Bill” this year? The third richest man on the planet doesn’t have a green thumb. Nor does he put in the back-breaking labor humble people do to grow our food and who get far less praise for it. That kind of hard work isn’t what made him rich. Gates’ achievement, according to the report, is that he’s largest private owner of farmland in the US. A 2018 purchase of 14,500 acres of prime eastern Washington farmland – which is traditional Yakama territory – for $171m helped him get that title.

In total, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland with assets totaling more than $690m. To put that into perspective, that’s nearly the size of Hong Kong and twice the acreage of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, where I’m an enrolled member. A white man owns more farmland than my entire Native nation!

When pressed during a book discussion on Reddit about why he’s gobbling up so much farmland, Gates claimed, “It is not connected to climate [change].” The decision, he said, came from his “investment group.” Cascade Investment, the firm making these acquisitions, is controlled by Gates. And the firm said it’s “very supportive of sustainable farming”. It also is a shareholder in the plant-based protein companies Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods as well as the farming equipment manufacturer John Deere. His firm’s largest farmland acquisition happened in 2017, when it acquired 61 farming properties from a Canadian investment firm to the tune of $500m.

Why would Gates come out and say, “It is not connected to climate change.” It tells me that Gates is concerned that people think he might be purchasing land because of climate change. This tells me that -- Gates is purchasing land for a climate change related project. I believe it's because of the carbon capture technology. Gates wants to own the land they are going to build on.

It's nearly impossible now to find any of the stories about high-speed rail in Florida. That was a similar story. The man who proposed and lobbied for the high-speed rail system owned around 80% of the land it was to be built on. Land that was otherwise very low value, could be sold for much more to the government -- for high speed rail.

I have no doubt that Gates is eyeing the exact same thing here.

Then you have the solid CO2 substance idea. Dumping the CO2 into the ocean. The logistics of this method are mind boggling. There are many facets to this. First they will have to determine how much of the CO2 slurry they can dump in a particular area, before it changes the PH of the water enough to kill wildlife. And the tides will effect the volume of water in a given area while causing a change in currents, so there's a timing aspect to it as well. Then once the ecological impact is determined, they can actually attempt to engineer a system to distribute it. Because dumping it from ships wouldn't be very "carbon neutral."

However, this is all based on the idea that carbon dioxide in the air is going to destroy our environment, is it? What evidence do we have other than the hockey stick chart, which was comprised of falsified data, and politicians who are pushing this idea.

Update 04-25-24:

The EPA just released a new emissions law requiring coal and gas-fired power plants to capture up to 90% of their carbon emissions.

Existing plants will get a little bit of a break, but new plants will have to meet the new requirements immediately.

The power plant rule marks the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution. The new standards will avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to the annual emissions of 328 million gas cars, the EPA said, and will provide hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and health benefits, measured in fewer premature deaths, asthma cases and lost work or school days.

...

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said that through the latest rules, “the EPA is systematically dismantling the reliability of the U.S. electric grid.’'

He accused Biden, Regan and other officials of “ignoring our energy reality and forcing the closure of well-operating coal plants that repeatedly come to the rescue during times of peak demand. The repercussions of this reckless plan will be felt across the country by all Americans.”

...

Dan Brouillette, president and CEO of of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents U.S. investor-owned electric companies, said he was “disappointed” that the EPA “did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage.’' While promising, the technology “is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment,’' said Brouillette, who served as energy secretary in President Donald Trump’s administration.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"