I have a 25 watt mobile backpack rig, with a roll up j-pole that I can hang from the side of the house for simplex. The plan is to put up a 10’ tall comet base station antenna in the attic just above the garage with coax running the the wall to a jack by the workbench to plug the radio into. I figured that running simplex on 1.25m would be pretty “un-congested” to say the least.
In recent years, climate activists have taken to pouring stuff (like paint or soup) on famous works of art to draw attention to their message. Of course, these artworks are behind thick glass, so these acts do not actually destroy the item. But symbolically, they get attention. As we learn in First Amendment doctrine, one way to garner attention is to destroy things that other people find valuable–such as burning draft cards and American flags. (As much as I respect Justice Scalia's vote in Texas v. Johnson, I'm still not sure he was right.)
Now, climate activists have turned to something that I–and I suspect you–find of the highest value: the United States Constitution. Two men poured some sort of red powder on the case housing the original Constitution at the National Archives.
Carbon Controls To Stop You From Growing Your Own Food,
by Brandon Smith
In early 2020, in the midst of the covid lockdowns, blue states run by leftist governors pursued mandates with extreme prejudice. In red states like Montana, after the first month or two most of us simply ignored the restrictions and went on with life as usual. It was clear that covid was not the threat federal authorities made it out to be. However, in states like Michigan the vise was squeezed tighter and tighter under the direction of shady leaders like Gretchen Whitmer.
Whitmer used covid as an opportunity to institute some bizarre limitations on the public, including a mandate barring larger stores from selling seeds and garden supplies to customers. “If you’re not buying food or medicine or other essential items, you should not be going to the store,” Whitmer said when announcing her order. The leftist governor was fine with purchases of lottery tickets and liquor, but not gardening tools and seeds.
She never gave a logical reason why she targeted garden supplies, but most people in the preparedness community understood very well what this was all about: This was a beta test for wider restrictions on food independence. There was widespread rhetoric in the media throughout 2020 attacking anyone stockpiling necessities as “hoarders,” and now they were going after people planning ahead and trying to grow their own food. The establishment did not want people to store or produce a personal food supply.
Another prospect that was being openly discussed among globalists was the idea that lockdowns were “helpful” in ways beyond stopping the spread of covid (the lockdowns were actually useless in stopping the spread of covid). They suggested that the these measures could be effective in preventing global carbon emissions and saving the world from “climate change.” The idea of climate lockdowns began to spread.
The corporate media has since lied about the existence of the climate lockdown agenda, but articles and white papers extolling the virtues of shutting down the planet in the name of climate change are easy to find and read. The globalists and their academic defenders wanted PERMANENT lockdowns, or rolling lockdowns every couple of months, shutting down most human activity and travel outside of basic production.
I have argued in the past that what Whitmer was doing in Michigan was a part of this agenda – That her garden supply ban was part of a wider goal that had nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with stopping people from prepping. The covid controls were only meant to be a precursor to carbon controls.
This past week we have seen more confirmation of this, as a study out of the University of Michigan claims that homegrown foods produce five times more carbon emissions than industrial farming methods. In other words, private gardens could be considered a threat to the environment. The Telegraph and other corporate platforms have jumped on the story, and I believe this is cause for concern.
The study includes analysis of various gardens from individual family plots to urban and community plots and claims that “garden infrastructure” for individual plots (such as raised beds) contribute far greater carbon pollution than large scale farming. The study seems to ignore the fact that raised beds are more efficient and grow more food in a smaller space, but I doubt they really care to take these kinds of things into consideration.
The average person might be confused by this and assume the opposite is true – Wouldn’t growing foods at home be BETTER for the environment? Not if your funding relies on portraying independent food supplies as bad for the planet. The study is bankrolled by a host of international groups, including the European Union’s Horizon Program which lists “100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030” as one of its project goals. These 100 cities are then supposed to act as flagship models for the eventual carbon agenda takeover of all cities by 2050.
Such groups have billions of dollars at their disposal and focus most of that monetary firepower on climate change research (propaganda). Do I think that the Michigan study is rigged in favor of a predetermined outcome? Probably. When these studies are funded by globalist interests, their outcomes always seem to favor globalist goals. The study itself does not necessarily argue that people should stop gardening, but it does push the narrative that carbon controls are necessary, even at an individual level.
The Michigan report might seem like a meaningless footnote. However, as we witnessed last year with a study from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on natural gad appliances, these little and obscure studies are often used to justify large scale government interventions into people’s daily lives. The CPSC study inspired months of debates from Democrats in the US demanding that gas appliances including stoves be banned because they might cause health side effects, specifically in children (it turns out the study had no concrete basis for this claim).
Leftists and globalists do not care about protecting your health; they care about how these studies can be used to fear monger, thus increasing their power. In other words, if you can rig the science, then you can rig the laws.
We saw something similar to this in a UN study in 2006 which claimed that meat production contributed to nearly 20% of all carbon emissions and was worse for the environment than transportation. The study was exposed in 2010 as “flawed” (fraudulent), but for years the media and globalist organizations used its false conclusions as a springboard to demand limitations and bans on meat production in the name of saving the climate.
If you think the war on farming which is raging right now in Europe is only intended to affect industrial farms, think again. The establishment is going to try to use the man-made climate change lie to dictate all food production, right down to your unassuming backyard garden. And they won’t limit their efforts to the EU; they will come after American farms with the same restrictions.
This is really what the globalist “net zero” programs and 15 minute cities are all about – They are based on the idea that all human activity needs to be monitored and managed. They say it’s for the good of the planet, but the systems they want to put in place from 2030 to 2050 sound like a new digital feudalism, a society where bureaucracies track and trace and micromanage every aspect of your life. The elites benefit greatly while never proving that carbon emissions are a danger to anyone.
Why the obsessive focus on food? Because if people have their own food, then they might be more willing to rebel against further mandates. It’s really that simple. The end game is obvious – Control the food, and you control the world. Do it in the name of saving the planet and a lot of people will even thank you as you starve them.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.
A watchdog group is escalating its battle with the Justice Department over the FBI’s refusal to turn over files on Ashli Babbitt, the United States Air Force veteran shot and killed during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot over the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over former President Donald Trump.
Judicial Watch, claiming a “cover-up,” on Friday filed a suit in federal court claiming that the FBI has twice refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act demands for any files it has on Babbitt and her husband Aaron.
The FOIA lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Judicial Watch is working with Aaron Babbitt, who is the executor of his wife’s estate, to get all the information the government has on the duo and its reports of her shooting death by then-U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd as she attempted to enter the House Speaker’s Lobby unarmed.
They recently joined in filing a $30 million wrongful death suit against the government in the death of the 35-year-old, the only one associated with the riots who died on Jan. 6.
“Judicial Watch and our supporters are honored to represent Ashli’s steadfast widower Aaron Babbitt and her estate in this legal action. Ashli was shot in cold blood, and the rule of law requires justice for her,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in filing the suit on Jan. 4.
In its new FOIA suit, Judicial Watch said that not only has the FBI refused its two demands for files but that the law enforcement agency has also stiff-armed the Justice Department office that advocates FOIA compliance, the Office of Information Policy.
In its four-page filing, the attorney for Aaron Babbitt and Judicial Watch said, “the FBI has failed to produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or notify plaintiffs of the scope of any responsive records they intend to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.”
Fitton said, “Ashli Babbit was the only homicide victim on Jan. 6, yet the FBI has been illicitly hiding its files on Ashli Babbitt from her family for a year. Why the cover-up?”
In the wrongful death suit, a new camera angle of the shooting was provided. The time-stamped video showed an unarmed Babbitt being pushed into the House Speaker’s Lobby as Byrd raises his gun. After he shot, she fell back, bleeding from the shoulder and neck.
According to the suit, “Ashli remained conscious for minutes or longer after being shot by Lt. Byrd. Ashli experienced extreme pain, suffering, mental anguish, and intense fear before slipping into pre-terminal unconsciousness. The autopsy report identified the cause of death as a ‘gunshot wound to left anterior shoulder’ with an onset interval of ‘minutes.’ The fact that Ashli was alive and conscious in extreme pain and suffering is documented in videos of the shooting.”
The suit continues, “Furthermore, nothing about the wound track described in the autopsy report would be expected to result in immediate death or instantaneous loss of consciousness, and Ashli’s lungs contained blood, further confirming that she was alive and breathing after being shot. Ashli was pronounced dead at Washington Hospital Center at 3:15 p.m. The medical examiner determined that the manner of death was homicide.”
Byrd later said he shot Babbitt as a “last resort.” He was subsequently promoted to captain.