Connect with us

Conspiracy Theory

Camp Century: The problem nobody wants to discuss

Published

on

What if I told you there was a nuclear waste dump buried beneath the ice in Greenland? What if I told you the United States military put it there and after leaving it, has not taken responsibility for its cleanup? What if I then mentioned it’s becoming a hot topic for climate change alarmists who are using it as one way to pressure the government into abiding by the Paris Climate Accords or some other variation of global warming adventurism?

What I’m talking about is Camp Century, and it’s going to be making the news more and more in coming years. Why? Because it was buried under snow and ice, but that snow and ice is melting. Unless conditions change, it’s going to be in open air soon enough, allowing for the possibility of contamination and nuclear challenges that can reach the entire northern hemisphere.

Before we get too deep into the dangers associated with Camp Century, let’s address the fearmongering. Those who do not believe that man-made climate change is legitimate need not worry too much about it. If the models continue to support the conclusion that temperature rising and falling is cyclical, then Camp Century will remain safely under the ice indefinitely. Recent evidence is pointing to this trend, though you may not know this based on headlines.

As our EIC pointed out on Twitter:

To elaborate on this, the headlines following the release of 2018 temperature numbers were generally negative, pointing to the alarmists’ narrative that global warming keeps making things bad for us. They made headlines like the one mentioned above, but buried deep in the stories was the truth: 2018 was actually COOLER than 2015, 2016, and 2017.

It’s important to note that I’m not a climate change denier. I do, however, believe climate change cannot be attributed directly to the carbon emissions of man, and moreover reduction of carbon emissions will not reverse the trend based on the scientific studies I’ve read. I believe it’s a cycle. I’m an environmentalist at heart who believes in protecting the world around us, but I’m not ready to go into a downward fiscal spiral over carbon emission alarms.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say Camp Century is uncovered as a result of climate change or any other means. Should we be concerned about a natural disaster causing unnatural consequences? Yes, but not just because of the nuclear waste buried beneath the ice. It’s possible there’s much worse things down there to uncover.

Project Iceworm

Little known to the public is a plan to use Camp Century for more than its stated goal of arctic research. Project Iceworm was actually the primary goal of the United States military. Their hope: To place nuclear weapons in Greenland that could reach our Cold War enemies very quickly.

The project was allegedly scrapped when ice shifts happened much more rapidly than initially projected. Again, this is great fodder for global warming alarmists, but even if we argue the ice shifts were caused by global warming six decades ago, it goes against the other narratives that the ice has been melting dramatically for only about two decades.

Nevertheless, there may be more buried under the ice than just diesel fuel and some spent nuclear rods.

This video is made with a climate change alarmist spin to it. Don’t let that take away from the other information in it, which is very good and somewhat important. At the very least, it’s interesting to know we were trying to “nuke up” Greenland in the past.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

0

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Alexandra Chalupa, the woman nobody (other than Glenn Beck) is talking about in the Russian hoax

Published

on

Alexandra Chalupa Glenn Beck Russia Investigation

Have you heard the name, “Alexandra Chalupa” or the political and communications consulting group she founded, “Chalupa and Associates”? Probably not. Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the news at all for the last three years you’ve probably heard of the DNC, Russia investigation, Clinton Foundation, Ukrainian scandal, and CrowdStrike. All of these are separate organizations or events that are loosely tied together with some being closer to others. But they all share a common thread: Alexandra Chalupa.

Of all the players in the ongoing series of strange circumstances surrounding President Trump’s 2016 election and on through his presidency, Alexandra Chalupa appears to be the one connected to just about all of them. It’s a testament to the weak, biased nature of mainstream media that she hasn’t really made the news at all despite all of these connections.

Where does she fit in? Right in the middle. But nobody has been talking about her for three years other than brief mentions here and there. That all changed this weekend when Glenn Beck and his team tied the strings together to paint the first clear picture of how this lobbyist and progressive activist has been squarely involved in efforts to take down the President since before his big election.

Our investigation into Chalupa starts now, but it’s through the efforts of Glenn Beck and his team that we get a head start on it all. What role has Alexandra Chalupa played in the Russian and Ukrainian scandals? We’ll soon find out.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Whistleblower worked with Joe Biden when he was VP: Report

Published

on

Whistleblower worked with Joe Biden when he was VP Report

When it was revealed a couple of days ago that the whistleblower accusing President Trump of quid pro quo with Ukraine actually worked with a current Democratic candidate, speculation was rampant. But the revelation of which candidate it was makes way too much sense. Of course it was Joe Biden. We should have realized it the whole time.

We already knew he was a CIA agent, which potentially put him working with the White House. Biden is the only candidate who has ever worked out of the White House. We also know the subject of the call with Ukraine included discussions about Biden, so a sympathizer hearing about the call would be naturally compelled to blow the whistle if he thought it would help the candidate he knew and favored.

Now, we have the pieces of the puzzle coming together.

Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president, officials reveal

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-revealAs an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.

A former Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said Biden’s work on foreign affairs brought him into close proximity with the whistleblower either at the CIA or when he was detailed to the White House.

“This person, after working with Biden, may feel defensive towards him because he feels [Biden] is being falsely attacked. Maybe he is even talking to Biden’s staff,” the former official said. “Maybe it is innocent, maybe not.”

No, it’s almost certainly not innocent. We know the whistleblower first took his concerns to Representative Adam Schiff’s staff and that Schiff lied about it. Now that we know the whistleblower worked with Biden, it makes sense that he would want to protect his former boss.

Could there be more to it than that? If the whistleblower participated in work Biden did in Ukraine, it’s possible that he wouldn’t want his own actions or actions of others he worked with exposed in an investigation by the Ukrainians. There’s no indication that anyone other than Biden was involved in wrongdoing, but it’s conspicuous that the whistleblower may have been part of the Ukrainian entourage.

Every new detail that emerges about the whistleblower and the Democrats pushing impeachment paints it as more suspicious. What else are they trying to hide? Is impeachment a smokescreen as they cover their own trail of corruption?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending