Concur Expense Reporting Company’s Logo resembles Islamic Flag

Leave a comment

Concur Expense Reporting Company and app logo resembles the Islamic flag. I really can’t imagine why but I thought it was quite a coincidence.  Why would Concur design their logo with just the C and O, then position them the way they did? It is an international company so maybe they need to appease certain people — or it could just be they never intended it to resemble the flag symbol at all.



Sandy Hook, The Emerald City

Leave a comment

Almost immediately after the Sandy Hook “shooting” ,  emerald green was designated as the memorial color because it was one of the teacher’s favorite colors.
Well, lo and behold, it so happens that emerald is an important color to the Illuminati as noted in the blog excerpt below. And it so happens Newtown / Sandy Hook is a hotbed for occultism and freemasonry . Aaand it is where the author of Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, lives .

From Educate Yourself dot org

The color coding for alters is not the same just because the alters are in the same section. The color coding within the Illuminati Mind Control is fairly consistent, however a sample of an alternative Illuminati color scheme will also be provided.

A survey of colors is as follows:

CLEAR. Secret or shell alters who can take on any color are coded clear. These are alters who serve as images or as a stage for other alters. This would include “Guardian of the Vail” alters.

GOLD. This color is for the supreme leadership in the System, which includes the Grand Druid Council.

SILVER. This color is for the Satanic alters who perform high level Satanic rituals. The Mothers of Darkness have silver coding.

PURPLE. These alters see themselves as the abusers, rather than the Illuminati. These alters were involved with the programming. They have been taught to forget the abuse and to reframe it in their mind as training.

BLACK. These alters were born out of Satanic ritual, and are Moon children. The Delta and Beta alters are black coded. They do the dirty work for the cult, such as blackmail and assassination.

RED. These altars see themselves as witches. They were born out of witchcraft ritual, believe they have great spiritual power, and tend to deny that they have been abused.

GREEN or EMERALD GREEN. These cat altars recognize they have been abused. They still see themselves as belonging to the cult family, and deny that they have been abused to protect their cult family.

BLUE ALTERS. Clones, armies and the ribbons appear to have blue coding. These alters will go so far as to hurt the body to protect it from leaking information or deprogramming.

WHITE. ‘These are Atlantean alters who have been given Aryan type racial nonsense to think they are superior. They believe in genetic engineering, and a master race.

ORANGE. These special protector alters are scouts who warn of danger from internal or external threats.

YELLOW. These are the strong Christian alters of which there will only be a few in the System. They help serve as a balancing point to control the System as well as to hide what the System is all about.

PINK. These are core related alters. They maintain the true feelings of the true self apart from the cult programming and the cult family’s programming. These alters are viewed as weak because they are emotional and often break down and weep. They are fragile emotionally.

An alternative color scheme that is used:

DARK EMERALD GREEN. This color is assigned to the AntiChrist-Satan alter(s). Green is the occult color for Satan and happens to be the most sacred color. Few people outside of Satanists know that Green is more sacred for them than any other color.

LIGHT GREEN. The gods and goddess alters which are triads which function in

Here’s the link to the full blog :

Did the Obama Administration know the Benghazi attacks were coming?

Leave a comment

From what I’ve heard I have concluded that the White House knew the attack on Benghazi was going to happen.
Why would they refuse to send military help and give the excuse that there was not enough time? How would they have known how long this attack was going to be regardless of whether was a protest or spontaneous terrorist attack?
Did Chris Stevens plan on divulging information that would be detrimental to the White House?
This is the sort of question we need to ask even though we might be branded as conspiracy theorists

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — U.S. military personnel knew early on that the Benghazi attack was a “hostile action” and not a protest gone awry, according to a retired general who served at U.S. Africa Command’s headquarters in Germany during the attack.
While the exact nature of the attack was not clear from the start, “what we did know early on was that this was a hostile action,” retired Air Force brigadier general Robert Lovell said in his prepared statement Thursday morning to members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.”
Lovell’s testimony contradicts the story that the Obama administration gave in the early days following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Back then the administration insisted that the best intelligence it had from CIA and other officials indicated that the attack was a protest against an anti-Islam video that turned violent.
Lovell’s testimony is the first from a member of the military who was at Africa Command at the time of the attack. Lovell was deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command.
Lovell did not question the Pentagon claim that it could not have scrambled forces in the region quickly enough to have prevented the deaths of the Americans. Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.
“As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above,” Lovell said.
While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya “churned on about what we should do,” but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.
There were questions about whether the U.S. military could have responded to Benghazi in time, but “we should have tried,” Lovell said.
Most Democratic committee members directed their questions to other witnesses, who spoke about the political situation in Libya since the U.S.-assisted overthrow in 2011 of dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the testimony of then-commander of AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham and others who testified that the military moved a special forces unit from Europe to Sicily while the attack was ongoing, and sent a special anti-terrorism team of Marines to Tripoli within a day of the attack.
“Why are you testifying that the U.S. military did not try to save lives?” Cummings asked.
Lovell said he was not disputing that information.
“I did not say we did not try,” Lovell said. “What I’m speaking to is that we as a nation need to try to do more, in preparations, so that in the future … we can support the people and have their backs.”
In response, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “The notion that the State Department did not do everything possible to protect our people that night is as offensive as it is wrong.”
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., asked Lovell if he disagreed with Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who told reporters last month that the military responded reasonably in Benghazi.
“I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did,” McKeon said.
Lovell did not deny what McKeon said. “We should have continued to move forward with whatever forces we had to move forward with,” Lovell said.
He described a sense of desperation while the attack unfolded when asked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, how the military responded during the attack.
“We sent a drone overhead,” Lovell said, almost mumbling. “It was desperation. … There was a lot of waiting for State Department for what it was that they wanted.”
“Did they ever tell you to go to Benghazi?” Chaffetz asked.
“No sir.”
Lovell is testifying in a week of other Benghazi-related news.
Chaffetz also submitted a Sept. 12, 2012, e-mail from then-Acting Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones to then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and others that attributed the attack to Ansar al-Sharia, a militia in Benghazi associated with al-Qaeda.
In the e-mail, Jones said she told Libya’s then-ambassador to the U.S., Ali Aujali, at 9:45 a.m. that morning “that the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar Al Sharia – is affiliated with extremists.”
Some Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and oversight committee chairman Darrel Issa, R.-Calif., have questioned whether the military did all it could to protect U.S. personnel as terrorists overran the State Department’s compound in Benghazi and assaulted a CIA compound nearby.
Congress has heard from Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. They agreed with a State Department review headed by former admiral Mike Mullen that said: “The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”
On Tuesday, a conservative watchdog group released an e-mail showing that White House aide Ben Rhodes wanted to blame the 2012 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on a protest that never happened there.
Referring to Benghazi and Middle East unrest, he said that then-national security adviser Susan Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that sentence in the e-mail, which was among several provided to the oversight committee as related to Benghazi, referred to protests occurring in Arab capitals, not to the Benghazi attack.
The White House later acknowledged the attack on Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack and not preceded by a protest

Solar Farms Threaten Birds

Leave a comment

From Scientific American

Solar Farms Threaten Birds
Certain avian species seem to crash into large solar power arrays or get burned by the concentrated rays

By John Upton and Climate Central | August 27, 2014

Yuma clapper rail.
Credit: Fish & Wildlife Services
You might never have seen an Yuma clapper rail. Fewer than 1,000 are thought to still be sloshing about in cattail-thick marshes from Mexico up to Utah and across to California. But if you were lucky enough to spot one, you might chuckle at its oversized toes.

When officials with the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory saw one of these endangered birds last year, it was no laughing matter. It was dead. It was one of 233 birds recovered from the sites of three Californian desert solar power plants as part of a federal investigation. The laboratory’s wildlife equivalents of CSI stars concluded that many of the birds had been fatally singed, broken, or otherwise fatally crippled by the facilities.

Last week, that long-dead clapper rail stoked a legal action that challenges at least a half dozen additional solar plants planned in California and Arizona.

Conservationists say they’re also worried about yellow-billed cuckoos, which might be added to the federal government’s list of threatened species, and endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, though none of those birds have been found dead at any of the solar sites.

The effects of wind turbines on birds, which research suggests kill far fewer birds per megawatt hour than do fossil fuel plants, have long been a source of consternation for many environmentalists. Their bird-killing effects have been serious enough to kill and hamper some planned projects. Now, as concentrated solar farms start to sweep the globe, solar energy developers are facing similar outcries and opposition for the harm that their clean energy facilities can cause to wildlife.

The construction of solar panel farms and concentrated solar power are both booming businesses. In California, industrial-scale facilities like these are helping utilities meet a state mandate that 20 percent of electricity sold by 2017 is renewable. But if the problem of wildlife impacts festers, the growth of concentrated solar, which by one recent estimate could grow to a $9 billion worldwide industry in 2020, up from $1 billion in 2013, could be crimped by lawsuits and opposition from conservationists.

Much of the problem appears to lie in the “lake effect,” in which birds and their insect prey can mistake a reflective solar facility for a water body, or spot water ponds at the site, then hone in on it. Because of the power of the lake effect, the federal investigators described such solar farms as “mega-traps” in their report.

“I strongly believe there’s a way to show the birds that the PV panels are solid surfaces, not water,” said Ileene Anderson, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, which is preparing to sue over Yuma clapper rail mortality at solar power plants.

The Associated Press reported last week on “streamers” at BrightSource Energy’s concentrated solar plant — a futuristic-looking facility that gamers pass as they drive through the desert between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. That’s the name given to birds as their feathers ignite, mid-air, after flying through a concentrated beam of sunlight. Such hapless birds can be burned to death, killed by brute force when they crash to the ground, or eaten a predator swoops in to claim their maimed body. These are just some of the ways that large solar plants can kill birds. It’s not known how many birds are being felled by the groundswell of such facilities, but the numbers are high enough to concern bird and conservation groups — regardless of the environmental benefits of solar power.

“We can safeguard our irreplaceable wildlife, like the Yuma clapper rail, through thoughtful implementation of renewable energy projects,” Anderson said.
Within days of the AP report, Anderson’s group, which had obtained the federal report through a public records request, dispatched a notice of intent to sue. In the letter, an attorney for the group threatened to take the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to court in 60 days unless the agencies agreed to more thoroughly review the potential bird impacts of other large solar power plants proposed within the Yuma clapper rail’s range. The notice alleges violations of the Endangered Species Act.

The attorney cites findings from the federal investigation report, which showed that the Yuma clapper rail had been killed at First Solar’s 4,400-acre Desert Sun Solar Farm in California’s Riverside County. The facility uses a 550-megawatt photovoltaic array that produces clean electricity for Californian utility customers. (The group also cited a media report of another Yuma clapper rail death at a similar facility.) Birds can be killed when they smash into the facility’s solar panels, the investigation concluded.

The other solar farms analyzed by the investigators were of the newfangled trough and solar power tower varieties. They included the Genesis Solar Energy Project, also in Riverside County, which uses a trough system in which parabolic mirrors focus sunrays into a tube where water boils into steam that spins a turbine to produce electricity. The mirrors pose similar threats to birds as solar panels. The third facility studied was the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in Bernardino County, Calif., where birds can be burned as they pass through concentrated sunrays that are reflected off thousands of mirrors toward a solar power tower, where water is boiled to produce electricity-generating steam.

The problem of bird deaths at solar power farms is a complex one. Some solar developers have been powering down bright lights that had attracted insects at night, or switching to LEDs, and using nets to keep birds at bay. But that apparently is not enough. “The diversity of birds dying at these solar facilities, and the differences among sites, suggest that there is no simple ‘fix’ to reduce avian mortality,” the federal report states.

The report recommends improving bird- and bat-death monitoring through the use of sniffer dogs, video cameras, and daily surveys. It also lists recommendations for directly reducing avian mortality. Those recommendations include clearing vegetation around solar towers to make the area less attractive to birds, retrofitting panels and mirrors with designs that help birds realize the solar arrays are not water, suspending operations at key migration times, and preventing birds and bats from roosting and perching at the facilities. The recommendations are being considered by regulators.

The Center for Biological Diversity supports those proposed measures. It also suggests restoring bird habitat elsewhere to draw birds away from the solar facilities, which could help the rails and other species recover. And it wants the government to undertake new scientific research — research that could offer clues for better protecting birds from solar power farms.

“We’d like the FWS to start looking at the potential problem that the Yuma clapper rail may be being attracted onto the sites,” Anderson said. “These large-scale solar projects in the desert are giant experiments, and we should be learning something from them in order to avoid and minimize impacts. We’re so low on the learning curve that there’s a lot of unanswered questions

incredibly, UCC received a very special federal grant of over 2 million dollars this year

Leave a comment

Wow, what a coincidence that the college where the “shooting” occurred received a special federal grant – – just like the Sandy Hook / Newtown community received shortly before their “shooting”

Umpqua Community College received notification Thursday it will receive a $2,241,102 five-year grant to improve student success.

UCC is one of only two colleges in Oregon (with Tillamook Bay Community College) and 39 nationwide chosen to receive the highly competitive Title III, Part A grant.

The grant will fund Students at UCC Engaging in Strategies for Success (SUCCESS), a program that will establish a comprehensive, integrated First-Year Experience Program for all new students intending to earn a degree or complete a credit program. SUCCESS aims to improve graduation rates by better preparing students for college.

“This grant supports UCC ongoing efforts to help students achieve their goals of a college degree,” explained Susan Taylor, director of grants and planned giving for the UCC Foundation. “By allowing us to provide additional support for students as they start college, we can have a huge impact on their ability to complete a degree or certificate program. The impact will be life-changing.”

Some of the SUCCESS components include early alert and intervention systems to prevent students from dropping out, supplemental instruction and mentoring, flexible learning spaces in the campus library, and campus technology improvements.

Title III, Part A is a component of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a legislative document designed to strengthen the educational resources of colleges and universities and provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary education.

My Perception of the Bushies

Leave a comment

Regarding George HW Bush , George W Bush and Jeb! “Eeyore” Bush , I think the Bushies are Globalists Lite , that is,  they dont want to harm country and dont hate military but want a New World Order w/ US dominating . Democrats like Obama hate USA and don’t want it as a sovereign superpower nation anymore.
I am a fading Republican that’s leaning libertarian and was Democrat until 1998.  I’ve been politically active by voting in 95% of elections, even “minor” ones, my entire adult life. So I’ve seen how neither party is really about everyday citizens, its about a global agenda, and sometimes a very corrupt one, ie cultivation of drug crops in Afghanistan , Burma and Columbia.
Jeb! Bush is not about you- do not vote for him!

Catholics Forcefeed Agenda 21 through guilt trips and more. From Breitbart News

Leave a comment

My commentary : so in summary, what follows here is Catholic leadership is on board with the United Nations agenda 21 plan of action. UN Agenda 21 is a 200 – 300 page agreement ( instead of treaty which requires senate passage – think Iran “deal” , it’s basically the same trick) drawn up in 1992. Because of bad press, I believe the UN is using ” millennial development goals” instead of Agenda 21 in press releases and social media. Look it up, it’s about 1 religion 1 global government (AKA new world order) and forced eco and moral guidelines. Is this the world anyone really wants to live in other than those capstone VIPs pulling the levers to control us?

by IAN HANCHETT7 Sep 2015293
CNN Religion Commentator Father Edward Beck argued, “We’ve become very xenophobic, I think, in our country” and “the gospel is really less capitalism, a little bit more Socialist” on Monday’s “CNN Newsroom.”

Beck, while discussing Pope Francis’ upcoming visit to the US stated, “I think when he comes here, he’s going to say, ‘What are you willing to do with the immigrants you have? Are you willing to give them path to citizenship? And what are you going to do to even allow more immigrants to come in?’ We’ve become very xenophobic, I think, in our country. Some of it with good cause because of the issues that we’ve had. I mean, remember, the Boston bombers were refugees from Russia. So, there needs to be a vetting of refugees, of immigrants. The pope would be on board with that. But [what] he’s going to say is, ‘What is your Christian perspective with actually doing something practical?’”

Beck later added, “what the pope will scold is unbridled capitalism that says it’s all about you. Remember, the gospel is really less capitalism, a little bit more Socialist. It says if somebody has two coats, and you meet somebody who only has no coat — or has not coat, you have to give them one of your coats. Now, that’s not really according to our ethos and our perspective, I don’t think. You say, ‘Well, you’ve got to work for your own coat.” But you don’t ask, ‘Why don’t you have a coat?’ You first meet the need.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.