Maybe not now. But that’s what he could well become. Francis’ Encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home” recognizes the incredible damage being done to the climate and biodiversity. Few realize how strong his beliefs are and the unused power of persuasion he possesses. Here are 10 ways that power could be used.
1. Francis could call for a renewed emphasis on abstaining from red meat on Fridays.
Francis unequivocally recognizes the need for environmental stability: “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. . . . A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” 
He gives no quarter to climate change deniers, writing, “Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.” 
Missing from Francis’ Encyclical is the massive scientific evidence that meat is probably the single most important contributor to greenhouse gases (GHGs). Meat production (beef, chicken, pork) produces more GHGs that either the transportation sector or all industrial processes.
Some believe that meat production could account for much more than the 18-20% of GHGs if other factors were taken into account, such as livestock respiration, medical care of livestock, full loss of land used for meat production, and packaging, refrigerating, cooking, and disposing of meat.
Francis affirms the “urgent need to develop policies” to address climate change . There is probably no better way to develop a policy to reduce GHGs than resurrecting the emphasis on meatless Fridays.
2. Francis could ask religious leaders throughout the world to consider a day without red meat.
This raises two big questions: Would a pope try to influence non-Catholics? and, Would non-Catholics pay attention to a Catholic tradition? Francis clearly understands that the extent of environmental crises goes beyond his own church when he says “I wish to address every person living on this planet” regarding “our common home.” 
In wondering about the potential response from non-Catholics, I recall going to elementary school in Houston during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. It was not a particularly tolerant time or place. The proportion of Catholics at my school was tiny – not more than 3-4%. When I asked my teacher why we had fish cakes every Friday, she said, “It’s because the Catholic kids aren’t supposed to eat meat on Fridays.” That seemed reasonable. And it was okay with everyone else. Not one kid ever challenged a school that was over 90% non-Catholic adjusting its meals to accommodate a meatless Friday.
Might non-Catholics of today move from a passive acceptance of meatless Fridays to actively participate in a joint effort to halt environmental devastation? Francis is hopeful when he says, “Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.” 
Millions of people are searching for ways to have a meaningful effect on the climate. Most individual behaviours either have little impact on the big picture or are out of the reach of many people. For example, individuals who live 20 miles from work cannot really choose to ride a bike or take mass transit that does not exist.
Choice of food is different — it is something that most people can do by themselves. New eating habits, adopted by enough people, might dramatically influence the world’s climate.
3. Francis could ask governments to ensure that those who receive their livelihood from the livestock sector are protected from harm by decreased consumption of meat.
Over 1.3 billion people depend on livestock for income. This could make for a very long unemployment line and a lot of hostility toward vegetarianism. In addition to those who raise livestock, livelihoods that derive from it include manufacturing ranch equipment and supplies, growing animal feed, transportation, and sales of animal products such as leather.
Workers in all these industries are highly sensitive to the economics of livestock reduction. They must be a core part of planning for economic transition. A transformation would need to include projects that demonstrate how changing from a cattle ranch into growing crops (or other economic activity) can successfully occur. This would also include educational programs on how to make such changes, as well as proposals for new jobs for those currently working in livestock-dependent industries.
The U.S. is a rich country that can afford to be a model for the rest of the world. We could guarantee an income equal to what families relying on animals currently make if they agree to transition to plant-based agriculture for human food.
4. Francis could recommend that Catholics not eat any meat (including fowl and fish) on Mondays.
This would be a bold step, going beyond reemphasizing what is already Catholic doctrine. Yet, it would be consistent with Francis’ belief that the world has a “sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.” 
Overproduction of meat has horrible effects beyond climate change. The livestock sector accounts for over a third of global land area, which makes it a major contributor to deforestation, habitat destruction, and species extinction. According to the Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, livestock production is responsible for 55% of erosion, 37% of pesticide usage, and 50% of antibiotic usage.
There is already an embryo of the needed change in the “Meatless Monday” movement. A serious effort toward stewardship of the Earth requires a halt in the expansion of land which is used for livestock and then a progressive increase in acres of land returned to wild Nature.
5. Francis could ask religious leaders to consider a day without any meat (including fowl and fish).
Papal Encyclicals are recommendations — they are not commandments. Thus, an Encyclical by Francis recommending meatless Mondays would mean that Catholics would need to decide to what extent they should follow it.
Inspiring controversy would actually be better than ordering people to eat less meat. Once folks argue and haggle, the issue sticks to their minds. Those who do something because of their own choice are much more committed once they have made a decision.
A debate between the world’s 1.2 million Catholics would not be ignored by other religions. In fact, it could be a powerful impetus for a Great Discussion regarding how people can effectively impact climate change.
If Francis were to take such an audacious stand within the Catholic Church, he would elevate his ability to ask other religious leaders to step outside of their roles established hundreds or thousands of years ago to similarly recognize the profound threat to Life on Earth. What could be more helpful than several billion people questioning how actions during the next few decades will affect the existence of generations to come?
6. Francis could precaution the world against using vegetarianism as a weapon of cultural domination.
Of particular concern are non-Brahmin Indians and American Cowboys. Most of the world’s 1.1 billion Hindus live in India, which is often assumed to be overwhelmingly vegetarian. In fact, over two-thirds of Indians eat meat.
While Hindus do not have a strict ban on eating meat, most avoid doing so because they wish to minimize harming other life forms. Indians who do eat meat eat far less than do Americans. They include young people exposed to Western lifestyles and religious minorities of Muslims and Christians. According to Priti Gulati Cox, they also include “Dalits (formerly known as untouchables) and Adivasis (Indigenous communities),” who are victims of “Hindu-centric cultural imposition.”
In his article “Beef ban is an attempt to impose upper-caste culture on other Hindus” Dalit Professor Kancha Ilaiah explains that eating meat has always been a part of Dalit food culture. Since water buffalo meat is cheap, it is their major source of protein. He sees the current attempt by Brahmins to impose a beef ban as “casteist and racist.” Non- Brahmin Indians particularly resent attempts to ban eating beef when India is a major exporter of water buffalo meat, which is not considered sacred by upper castes.
Glance a few thousand miles away to the U.S. Many people in western states are very hostile to having a lifestyle imposed upon them by what they perceive as urban elitism. Some do things that harm their own health and welfare to preserve their customs. (Witness 2016 Presidential voting patterns.) In this way, they are not so different from India’s Dalits and Adivasis who strongly resist having Brahmin vegetarianism imposed on them.
The issue is how to present a change away from overconsumption of meat without devaluing their culture or creating massive unemployment. There is no magic bullet. But the answer must include a dialogue and understanding that eating less meat at each meal has as much effect as having some meals without meat.
In fact, the small portion of meat eaten means that Indians already have much less environmental impact than do Americans. Instead of being grain-fed, cattle and water buffalo in India typically eat vegetation from land unsuitable for farming, further reducing their harmful effects.
Yet, we must keep our eye on the prize. Giving up smoking and having unprotected sex with multiple partners have both been sub-cultural values that came into conflict with objective facts. Campaigns became effective when former smokers spoke out and when gay men themselves advised new behaviours. Attempts to reduce meat consumption will be counter-effective unless they include those American Cowboys who already question the quantity of meat eaten.
7. Francis could recommend that Catholics eat no animal flesh or animal products (including eggs, milk, and cheese) on Wednesdays.
The tradition of not eating meat on Fridays comes with the idea of doing without something for Lent. Not eating red meat for three days a week, no meat of any kind for two days a week, and no animal products one day a week would transform the concept of “doing without” to mean “doing without to preserve our common home.”
This is the sort of sacrifice that Francis hints at when he says calls on humanity “to recognize the need for changes in lifestyle.”  He quotes approvingly of the leader of Eastern Orthodox Church stating that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin.” 
This reflects the belief in man’s stewardship over nature shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The responsibility to preserve Life in all forms is an impossibility if ranchland and farms for animal feed continue to expand their destruction of wildlife habitat throughout the world.
How can the desire to protect wild Nature best be expressed? Recognizing that food travels over 1,000 miles from “farm to plate” has led many to become “locavores” who seek to eat food grown close to where they live. However, research demonstrates that not eating red meat and dairy for less than one day per week “achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.”
8. Francis could suggest to those of other faiths that they join him in setting aside an additional day for eating no animal flesh or animal products.
Clearly, millions of Catholics combining a locavore diet with a meatless diet for multiple days per week would have a profound impact on GHG emissions. Imagine the effect if billions of people did so.
Participants would make two important discoveries. First, food can taste good if it does not include red meat, if it does not include any animal flesh, and even if it does not include any animal products. As this realization spreads, an increasing number of restaurants would offer non-animal dishes on a regular basis. There would be more cooks realizing that vegetarian food is not the same as the current diet without meat but represents a different approach to preparing food entirely. Many people would voluntarily change to eating less meat during each meal and eating more meals without meat.
Second, reduction in eating meat would have profound health effects. High meat consumption is associated heart disease, obesity, and colorectal cancer. Health improvement would occur not only in Western countries, but also China, where meat consumption has zoomed upwards. Combined discoveries of taste and health could well reinforce each other as people realized that they would not be giving up good food to have a better quality of life.
9. Francis could urge the world to recognize the need for humane treatment as well as humane killing of animals.
Both Muslims and Jews are prohibited from eating meat from animals killed in a cruel way. Jews include humane killing as part of kosher meat and, for Muslims, it is halal meat. At the time those rules were written, there was no such thing as factory farms (Confined Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs).
A twenty-first century extension of ancient laws would recognize that CAFOs practice a merciless process of killing by slow torture. Confinement of animals in tiny cages is so unhealthy that CAFOs routinely pump antibiotics into them so they will live long enough to be slaughtered.
Treating (and killing) animals in a humane fashion is close to a universally accepted value. CAFO owners are so worried that people would be horrified if they saw how they operate that they go to great lengths lobbying for laws that criminalize filming how animals are treated.
It is highly unlikely that the meat industry can continue to grow without an expansion of CAFOs. National laws and international treaties banning CAFOs should parallel an increase in plant-based diets. A call by Francis for humane treatment of animals, with a specific request that CAFOs be banned, would be an enormous contribution to reducing animal cruelty, meat consumption, and GHGs.
10. Francis could request a global inquiry into the need to begin shorter work weeks in a world which consumes less meat.
Since producing 1 pound of beef protein requires 10 pounds of vegetable protein, obtaining sufficient protein from vegetables will require vastly less cultivation. Just as fair trade means less trade, a world which relies on less meat will be one which needs less labour.
The livestock industry is merely one piece of an economy that must be massively reduced for human survival. Vegetarian agriculture is a bit analogous to a peace economy. Vegetarian production requires different use of land, but more importantly, use of less land. Peace economics emphasizes having fewer weapons to kill people rather than killing people with different weapons.
It is not possible to have less meat, less war, fewer toxic chemicals, less extractions of fossil fuels, fewer products (including homes) designed to fall apart, and more wild Nature in an economy that is growing exponentially. More astute than many progressives, Francis recognizes the dangers of unlimited economic expansion when he nods approval to “correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.” 
We need a smaller economy which focuses on providing basic needs for every person on the planet. This means a shorter — a much shorter — work week.
Producing less is only the first step in solving or reducing environmental problems. Of course, changes in production will be very different in various industries; so, environmentally sound economics requires considerable planning, education, adjustment, and readjustment.
This train of thought runs counter to capitalism, whose First Commandment is growth.
Francis has not been particularly receptive to capitalists, along with their politicians. They are left out of the equation when he calls for heeding “the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups.”  He warns that “Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms.” 
Neither is Francis receptive to “Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”  He spells out concerns with the latest step in capital accumulation: “Even as the quality of available water is constantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market. Yet access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right.” 
Bringing It Home
We can’t explore every religion; but, now that we’ve looked at Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam, let’s consider my religion of devout atheism. Devout atheism is quite different from dogmatic atheism, whose dedication to putting down religion has much in common with narrow-minded adherents within the religions it belittles.
Devout atheism feels a connection with the natural world that would be quite receptive to an encyclical from Francis that specified actions to protect Earth. Dogmatic atheists would, of course, reject anything from a Pope because they often worship money and power as do their dogmatic counterparts in the powerful religions.
The division of world is not between Catholic vs. Protestant, Muslim vs. Jew, Hindu vs. Adivasi, or pious vs. atheist. Rather, the great division is those of every belief who exalt the preservation of Nature vs. those who fantasize that happiness flows from possession of an ever greater quantity of objects.
Attaining a 100% vegan world overnight is not going to happen. Instead, we should work toward a huge reduction in meat production by (a) encouraging heavy meat eaters to decrease their portions, (b) encouraging moderate meat eaters to increase their vegetarian days, and (c) expanding the number of vegetarians and vegans, while (d) avoiding domination of meat-eating cultures, and (e) preparing for the economic disruptions which will inevitably accompany changes of the magnitude that must happen. Securing alliances and modifying approaches are possible without compromising the goal of vastly reducing the amount of meat produced.
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the section of “On Care for Our Common Home” from which the quotation is take.
Alien Hunter Reveals Alleged UFO At Area 51 On Google Earth
- The Facts:
A man by the name of Scott Waring created a video showing an alleged UFO at an area called S4 at Area 51. He used Google Earth to disclose the UFO. Area 51 is now fully acknowledged as a secret base by the US government.
- Reflect On:
What are the true implications of the reality of UFOs and extraterrestrials? Most leave this topic as a fun mystery, but truly think of how this changes the consciousness and worldview of people all around the world.
Back in the late 80’s Bob Lazar hit the mainstream news via an interview with journalist George Knapp. In the interview, he claimed to have worked on reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology at a site called S-4, near the Area 51 facility. Lazar also mentioned information regarding extraterrestrials and the fact that there are multiple groups of them, some of which have been in contact with several global governments.
Now, a man who claims to be have worked in the US Air Force shows a UFO via Google Earth. At first read, you might think this is hoaky, but looking more closely at his video below and what he actually reveals brings a lot more intrigue to this story.
YouTuber, ET Data Base, claims to have found an unidentified flying object near Area 51 in a region called S4 using the world’s greatest surveillance service – Google Earth. The YouTuber’s real name is Scott Waring and in the video he claims to have worked in the Air Force and had worked on B1 bombers. He did everything from paint to climb on top of them he claims. I was unable to verify these claims thus far, but his video below is interesting nonetheless as it doesn’t require that his background in the military is necessary.
Waring begins by locating Groom Lake on Google Earth. He then moves the map across the landscape to a smaller base (under the Area 51 umbrella) inside a massive circle. There he begins discussing what he feels is a massive UFO. Watch the video below to see exactly what Waring uncovered.
Regardless of what you feel about this particular video, it isn’t necessarily what I would call the strongest evidence to support the case of a massive and concerted UFO coverup that has been going on since the 60’s in the West. While other nations more widely discuss and admit the existence of UFOs and Aliens, the West has been sure to maintain a culture of disbelief, even if it goes against common sense and evidence.
We’ve covered the UFO subject in such deep detail over the last 10 years that a look through our archives can reveal much truth that is well documented.
Area 51 Used To Be A Conspiracy Theory
Like anything in our world that is laughed at before it is proven true, Area 51 used to be a mocked conspiracy theory. Those who allow government rhetoric and stuck belief systems to limit their view of reality long laughed off Area 51 as something that simply wasn’t to be taken seriously. That was until 2013 when the US government officially recognized the base following a freedom of information request. The FOIA request revealed they had once classified documents referring to the 8,000-sq m (20,700-sq km) installation by name and locating it on a map near Groom Lake.
This isn’t the only location as such, the reality of deep underground military bases has been thoroughly investigated and revealed.
Although common sense, research and credible whistleblowers had already blown this truth wide open, getting government admission is what some require to begin seeing the truth. An important step in breaking the illusion of our programmed reality such that we can understand what’s really going on in our world.
Since Bob Lazar: Area 51 and Flying Saucers went on Netflix, even characters like Joe Rogan have completely changed their mind about the subject. This is great news as Rogan used to be one that mocked the subject as having no evidence, a claim many who simply have not done the research will state.
I have stated many times that there is this feeling deep within us at this time, and I know you feel it, where we are beginning to deeply question our ways. How we treat one another, our political systems, the elite manipulation and control that exists, the existential reality of who we are and how we are truly just consciousness, is all connected. These deep questions are asking us to explore who we truly are and why we are truly here. And many of us are doing so. This is beginning to create instability and change in our system because the consciousness that holds up our old world is beginning to crack, and a new one is emerging.
The biggest secret behind why ET and UFO disclosure has been suppressed is something that isn’t discussed all that much – it’s the suppression of consciousness.
When you can avoid the shifting of a societies consciousness you can continue to maintain rigid systems that keep them enslaved. The ET and UFO discussion causes one to expand their mind so deeply that their view of reality evolves and expands deeply. This is a scary reality for those in power, but an inevitable awakening humanity is currently experiencing.
RFK Jr. Slams Gov’t & Big Pharma In Eye Opening Speech About Forced Vaccinations
- The Facts:
A recent speech given by Robert F Kennedy Junior highlights how vaccine bill SB267 represents medial tyranny.
- Reflect On:
Why does the mainstream continue to use headlines "anti-vaccine" and use ridicule instead of addressing and countering the points made by vaccine safety advocates.
California has very strict compulsory vaccination laws for children in school, and as a result more parents are deciding to homeschool their children. The latest information regarding vaccines in California that’s making noise is Senate Bill 276 by Senator Richard Pan. The bill eliminated nearly all vaccine medical exemptions. Under this bill, politicians, not physicians, are in charge of deciding whether or not children may receive medical exemptions, which in turn would determine whether or not they can attend school.
This bill, which was recently signed into law, represents medical tyranny that is similar to a police state. Forcing vaccinations on any segment of the population and taking away their freedom of choice is ridiculous. All of this is done under the assumption that unvaccinated children pose a danger to vaccinated children, and this is simply not true for several reasons.
Herd immunity is a largely theoretical concept, yet for decades, it has furnished one of the key underpinnings for vaccine mandates in the United States. The public health establishment borrowed the herd immunity concept from pre-vaccine observations of natural disease outbreaks. Then, without any apparent supporting science, officials applied the concept to vaccination, using it not only to justify mass vaccination but to guilt-trip anyone objecting to the nation’s increasingly onerous vaccine mandates.
In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors show that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” It is time, they suggest, to cast aside coercion in favor of voluntary choice.
This is true, in fact, there has been a history of disease outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations. I wrote an article not long ago providing multiple studies showing this, and the studies are elaborated on and linked in that article, which you can go through here.
According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
How can vaccines produce herd immunity if they’re not safe for everybody? It’s impossible.
The various forms of vaccine failure not only make herd immunity impossible to achieve, but also feed the occurrence of “vaccine-preventable illnesses” in highly or even fully vaccinated populations. There are numerous examples of this in published literature, again, some of which I link and go into greater detail about measles here.
Vaccines Aren’t Safe For Everyone
It’s no secret that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, it’s clearly not a ‘one size fits all’ product, and that’s evident by the fact that nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming when you consider that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products.
This completely debunks the validity of herd immunity.
Speech From Kennedy
While California’s tragic fall into what might rightly be described as a Medical Police State has many up in arms, RFK Jr. spontaneously delivered a speech outside Gov. Newsom’s office, helping to transform the anger and grief experienced by thousands of shaken onlookers into inspiration and hope, no doubt catalyzing further what is clearly becoming this country’s next grassroots civil rights movement.
In the astoundingly powerful and uplifting speech by RFK Jr. below, one senses the historical importance of what just transpired. And that the fall of California into medical fascism also marks the beginning of a new, broad-based civil rights movement, including all sexes, races, walks of life, religions, and socioeconomic classes — as it concerns the primary, inviolable human right of bodily self-sovereignty and health freedom, and a parent’s right to make informed health choices for their children, which can have life and death consequences. [From the Youtube video description]
Another Informative Statement From Kennedy
Via Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Merck introduced its measles vaccine in 1963, claiming the vaccine would convey lifelong immunity equivalent to a natural infection, with health officials promising that 55% vaccine coverage would produce “herd immunity” sufficient to eradicate measles by 1967.
Leading scientists of the day, including the world’s preeminent bacteriologist, Sir Graham Wilsonand Harvard Virologist John Enders, who first isolated measles, warned against introducing a vaccine unless it provided lifelong immunity. Measles, they cautioned, would rebound with increased virulence and mortality as the vaccine forced the evolution of more virulent strains and shifted outbreaks away from children—biologically evolved to handle measles—to the elderly who could die from pneumonia, and young infants now unequipped with maternal immunity.
A 1984 Johns Hopkins University modeling study predicted that Merck’s population-wide experiment would increase measles outbreaks by 2050, (when the last generation subject to natural immunity died off,) compared to the pre-vaccine era. This is exactly what has happened. Merck’s vaccine, with a growing failure rate has been incapable of abolishing the disease. Vaccine failure has left millions of adult Californians effectively unvaccinated. And 79% of people affected by measles in this year’s California outbreak were adults.
When eradication predictably didn’t materialize and measles attacked fully-vaccinated populations, Merck simply moved the goalpost saying that herd immunity required 75% vaccination, then 85%, then 95%, then 98%. And now 99%. To distract the world’s citizens from its failed vaccine, Merck started blaming “anti-vaxxers.” (The Vaccine Safety Movement)
California’s bought or brain-dead lawmakers are proposing to “fix” Merck’s vaccine failure problem by punishing 4,000 vulnerable children with medical exemptions. In an act of legislative savagery, Democratic politicians propose to forcibly vaccinate children whose doctors have told them that a vaccine could kill or severely injure them. SB276 will not fix the measles outbreak or solve the problem of vaccine failure, it will only reward a corrupt company for a defective product.
The idea that politicians can force children to be vaccinated, including those deemed to be in danger of severe adverse reactions, and strip them of their rights to attend public school is insane. Freedom of choice and medical freedom should always exist, especially with regards to vaccines. If parents want to vaccinate, fine, but parents who wish to not vaccinate their children for whatever reasons should always have the freedom to do so.
Mandatory vaccination is tyrannical.
“The fight for liberty and health freedom in California is far from over. There will be legal challenges,” said RFK. Jr., “all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. In fact, this incident brings to the forefront a deep, dark problem in the United States that has been festering for decades: the rise of the Pharmaceutical industry’s influence on the government to mandate products that the free market would otherwise reject, due to the profound liability these products have now underwritten completely by the government via their indemnification through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act (NCVIA) of 1986. Now, over three decades since the inception of NVICA, that same industry is starting to use the police powers of the state to enforce these mandates.” [Taken from the Youtube description in the video posted above]
Trump Furious As New Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation Emerges
- The Facts:
Trump angrily Tweets, calling our the "Radical Left" as new allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Justice Kavanaugh emerge.
- Reflect On:
How are we to move forward as so many politically driven claims come forth like this? Are they true? Are they a ploy? Can we truly ever tell? Are we seeing more political battles or a wake-up call about the misconduct of people?
President Donald Trump has come out suggesting Brett Kavanaugh should sue for “libel” after a fresh sexual assault allegation has emerged against the Supreme Court justice in the New York Times. Trump initially misspelled the word “libel” as “liable” and this of course sent mass media into a frenzy.
In an op-ed published yesterday, New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly stated that in the midst of their research for their forthcoming book about Kavanaugh, they found a previously unreported allegation of sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court justice.
According to both Kelly and Pogrebin, Yale student Max Stier had witnessed Kavanaugh pull down his pants at a dorm party and his friends then pushed his penis into an unnamed female classmate’s hand.
Stier reportedly told senators and the FBI about the incident during the investigation into the then-Supreme Court justice nominee last year during the Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford accusation trial. According to the Times op-ed, the FBI did not investigate Stier’s account.
Trump accused the “Radical Left” and news media of attempting to intimidate Mr. Kavanaugh with the new allegation.
“Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop? They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Since the new allegation on Kavanaugh, some have been calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court Justice, the hashtag #impeachkavanugh has been trending on Twitter.
As we always say here at CE, not enough information about this has come to public access to make any complete statements. This certainly doesn’t stop most people from reacting extremely emotionally though, which sometimes you can’t blame people for when you look at the nature of some in high places, but at the same time reacting so emotionally often leads to issues we collectively could avoid by simply remaining calm and pursuing more information.
This, of course, is the design of our modern engineered rage culture, but this isn’t to say there isn’t truth to allegations like this, more so that creating rage, whether events are true or not, is what pulls society apart. This is the clear goal of those in power beyond government.
That said, it’s possible Kavanaugh is guilty in this case. While the Blasey Ford story in 2018 seemed to fall apart very quickly, including her witnesses, one cannot simply brush off new allegations. I do feel it is the responsibility of people and the media to be responsible and not move into a political rage as it often happens. I also feel honouring such allegations with a proper investigation is a necessary step in our current society.
On the Right, some might view this solely as a political ploy to create more chaos around Trump, this is not a bad observation as we have seen this so heavily with the hoaxed Russian Collusion investigation. It’s media ploys like that, which become proven false, that make it hard for people to then believe events that could be true.
On the Left, this story fits right into the rhetoric that has been building for years. The reality is, we have learned that many in high places are involved in inappropriate sexual acts. It simply appears though that we only want to see the truth of ones that fit our political beliefs and identity. For example, the DNC’s prized Clinton’s are highly implicated with Epstein’s pedo-ring, but that isn’t a convenient narrative for our beliefs, so let’s just stick to the Right and Kavanaugh being guilty.
Perhaps we can’t see the world clearly when we crowd our observation with identities and political sides?
The CE protocol is what it is for a reason, it’s designed to help humanity evolve and find peace. This involves breaking the illusion of our reality, awakening neutrality within ourselves, deprogramming limits and living aligned with that state of being. In this case, if we do not break the illusion political sides place on us, we cannot expect to see the truth of our world.
Those on the Left and those on the Right will always fail to see the hidden hand above that works to engineer society into these divides and keep us disempowered both consciously and within society.
Check out the CE Protocol here to learn more about how we can truly shift the way we see our world and ourselves.
Ex-Model Who Attempted To Reveal Berlusconi’s Satanic Practices Dies From Painful Radioactive Poisoning
There are many people who don’t believe that the world’s elite have been religiously conducting Satanic practices in the bowels...
20 Pictures That Depict The Harsh Truth Of Our Everyday Life
We’ve all thought about the current state of humanity. We might even have our own opinions about what is right...