Tuesday, February 28, 2012




Divide and conquer.  The enemy busts the melting pot and treat the slaves differently-their new favored muslim taxpayers can assault you if you disagree with their imperialist political religion.

Know who your muslims are.  Keep an eye on the radicals but be ready to besiege their enclaves.


The Culture and Mindset of FEMA and Emergency Responders: An Inside Look

Written by Laura Densmore

Print E-mail

A Special Report from Hebrew Nation News

I recently had the privilege to interview a highly credible inside source who has worked in the emergency response field for many years. He has been to dozens of trainings over the years. As an insider, he has been to many FEMA training centers, and has access to highly classified information. What my anonymous source shared with me about the culture and mindset of the emergency responder community was very alarming. I will give you a couple of quotes to get started:

“In a major disaster or emergency, the Continuity of Government is the supreme overarching goal. Saving lives is NOT important.”

“The training and preparation is happening in a culture of death. The government is preparing for MASSIVE FATALITIES.”

“The government will NEVER tell you about an incoming asteroid on a collision course with earth in advance. Not even emergency responders, DHS, or FEMA will know in advance. The only folks who would know in advance are the inner circle at the NSA.”

“The goal is to keep the public in the dark: they will never know what hit them.”

Anonymous inside source


What is notably absent? They are NOT preparing or training to SAVE LIVES.

US citizens are now deemed the new “enemy”: US Military spy drones will now be used on the homeland to spy/collect intelligence on US citizens. Now that NDAA bill has been signed into law, for the first time EVER in American history, the US has been declared a “battle zone”.

They are preparing for an ALL HAZARD fatality involving massive fatalities.

There are now HUGE numbers of body bags. They are like zip lock baggies. They suck all the air out and the body inside is vacuum sealed. The sixty four million dollar question is this: WHY is FEMA stocking up on all these body bags? What do they know that we DONT know? What would be the CAUSE of all the massive fatalities that they seem to be expecting?

This is not just hypothetical planning on a chalkboard or in a computer simulation. The scenario of massive fatalities is realistic enough that the government has committed millions of dollars to purchase huge numbers of these zip lock/airtight body bags.

I will summarize to you what my anonymous insider source shared with me.

The focus of emergency training is on:

*Training, in the past, was focused on how to SAVE LIVES. NOT ANYMORE. Now the training is focused on dealing with MASSIVE fatalities, NOT saving lives.

*The FOCUS is on Continuity of Government, NOT saving lives. Elements of Continuity of government: It is a TOP SECRET plan. Not even Congress is allowed to see this plan. It involves implementation of Martial Law. In the Rex 84 plan, the President is a DICTATOR. See “Are We Already Under Martial Law and We Just Don’t Know it?”

*Control of people using FEAR (i.e. fear of terrorist attack. How else could The Patriot Act (or should I say, the “Martial Law Act”) EVER have been passed except in the hysteria/fear that came after 9/11 attacks?

*Use of false flag events as an opportunity to seize power/control. It is now well documented that the planes on 9/11 could not have, by themselves, brought both Twin towers down. And, why did building 7 implode and collapse hours later? No plane hit that building. BEWARE! Understand what a false flag event is. Ask Abba for wisdom to discern if an event has been “staged/manipulated” to be a false flag event.

According to my anonymous source, these are the kinds of scenarios Emergency responders are being trained to deal with. He has been to dozens of these kinds of training scenarios:

*ALL HAZARD fatality planning involving massive fatalities.

*New Madrid earthquake event, in which tens of thousands of people would perish. The government is taking this potential threat very seriously. Structural engineers are now designing and building roundabouts in the Mississippi watershed to replace bridges; they are more structurally sound in a massive earthquake.

*Near earth objects (i.e. asteroids), not single but multiple objects.

(HN News editor Comment: I wonder if Elenin was a “false flag event”, “intentional misdirection”, “psyop game”, to discredit asteroid reports. Folks stop paying attention, and then the REAL (and deadly) incoming object hits.

*Chemical/biological terrorist attack (i.e. release of Sarin gas, or release of small pox into the population)

Resilient Culture Training Aka Developing Your “Psychological Body Armor”

“There can be no room for human compassion. You focus on the goal. It is about cold human control.”

You run your game according to the 80/10/10 rule. What is that? This is a concept from the book, The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell.

In an emergency, a crisis, or martial law/breakdown of order in society:

80% will be in a stupor; These are the “sheeple”. They will follow along and will do what they are told.

10% will resist/fight back: These are the folks you execute, or round up, lock up, and “re-educate”.

10% are the “resilient trained leaders” who are in control and in charge. This is what the emergency responder community is being groomed and trained to be. They will “tip” the population and culture in the desired new direction, into the new paradigm, (martial law/slavery to the global elites).

In the Emergency responder and FEMA culture they are being trained to develop an

“0rganizational Culture of Resilience”: This training is what develops their "psychological body armor" so they can be part of the 10% of the "resilient trained leaders":

“Our observations have led us to believe that, just as individuals can learn to develop personal traits of resilience, so too can organizations develop a culture of resilience. We would argue that a culture of organizational resilience is built largely upon leadership, what we refer to as "resilient leadership." Consistent with the "Law of the Few" described in Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point, we believe key leadership personnel, often frontline leadership, appear to have the ability to "tip" the organization in the direction of resilience and to serve as a catalyst to increase group cohesion and dedication to the "mission." They do this, we argue, by demonstrating four core attributes of optimism, decisiveness, integrity, and open communications while serving as conduits and gatekeepers of formal and informal information flows throughout the organization and enjoying high source credibility(ethos).”

Why does FEMA want to train folks along these lines? The global economic collapse is already well underway. We only have to take a look at what is happening in Greece to get a glimpse of what may soon be coming to our own backyard. When the government tried to impose yet more austerity measures on the people, they came out by thousands to the streets to protest these measures.

The banksters scheme to rob the US treasury with bogus bailouts to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars has been exposed for what it is: a CORRUPT SHAM. It is only a matter of time before the economic dominoes collapse in other parts of Europe, and then the US. And, when the economy truly does collapse, and the dollar becomes utterly worthless, and when hyper-hyper-inflation hits, that is when it will get real ugly, real quick.

What might start as peaceful demonstrations in the streets could rapidly turn to rioting and looting. Already the pot has been boiling over with public outcry and outrage as seen in the Occupy Wallstreet events all over the country. For now, that movement has been quashed by our seamless and streamlined local/state/federal “Police State” responders.

And that is where the government comes in. Martial law. Shoot the leaders. Round up the other 5% of the demonstrators and send them to the detainee camps to be “re-educated”.

Sound far-fetched? Why is the government spending the money to build these detainee centers? Why are they training emergency responders to “have no mercy”, to “wear their psychological body armor” and to “focus on the goal” of CONTINUITY of GOVERNMENT?

The government doesn’t think this is far-fetched at all. In fact, they are PREPARING for it.

So should we. But not like them.

Monday, February 27, 2012


From Godlikeproductions.com...  http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1794678/pg1#29838106

Voice Chat Mod


User ID: 4888817
United States
02/27/2012 06:02 PM

Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Eric Rudolph Was Right
if you support this nonsense op, then you can fuck off.

i guess you think its ok to blow people up for whatever your cause is?

again, if thats how you feel, then you can eat a dick. rudolph is a fucking psychopath.

guess what, romans 13 says for people to obey the laws of the land. the laws of the land allow abortion, as well as execution.

so again op, if you support this kind of trash, then i personally think youre just as bad as any muslim extremist/terrorist.
Voice Chat Mod


User ID: 4888817
United States
02/27/2012 06:09 PM

Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Eric Rudolph Was Right
and for the record, if was were a site mod, id ban your ass simply for supporting a guy who uses violence to get his "message" across.

muslims kill people for god too. and we have a name for that...terrorist. fuck those people, and all their supporters.

same goes for rudolph.

btw, for those who dont know who rudolph is....have a gander. he is involved with a psycho extremist christian group called "soldiers in the army of god" who plot/plan abortion clinic bombings, as well as abortion doctor murders.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by Osirus on 02/27/2012 06:12 PM
J. Croft (OP)
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 513557
United States
02/27/2012 08:14 PM

Edit Post
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Eric Rudolph Was Right
How about I lock you in a room...

...barely big enough for you to stay in, in a squat...

...for months...

...you're naked...

...you depend on me for your very sustenance...

...until one day...

...the door opens...

...and a solution is sprayed into the room with a firehose that literally eats the flesh off you, to induce death by shock trauma?

Too brutal?

How about a giant robot pincer grabs a hold of you, as another pincer literally dismembers you?

Or how about if you're yanked out-until a drill goes into your head and sucks your brains out?

Or how about a gigantic hook just rips you apart?

...We've done this to over 50,000,000 people since 9 old pedophiles made their cursed Roe V. Wade decision.

So, who again is the terrorist?

J. Croft
[link to freedomguide.blogspot.com]
[link to freedomguide.wordpress.com]


The BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster: An Explosive Detonation?

  • Most of the oil that began to flow into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico did not come from Leaks 1 and 2, but from a third Well that BP hid from the public record.
  • The 3rd Well, research shows, could have been blown out by an explosive detonation.
by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 24, 2012
 Sometimes reality can stare you in the face, but you can’t see it. This is true today more than ever, even for those who fancy themselves as having an understanding of reality. The clearest example is with the so-called experts, that seem to live in a “version of reality” that does not represent the real world. Their expert views are blinded by hubris, bravado and arrogance. Just like many of us, they grew up inside this fake alternative version of reality, that is hard to leave. Failing to see reality has a lot to do with the human incapacity to see beyond the nose, to realize things may be different. Often, the experts believe in impossible scenarios, while they ignore facts and events that are right in front of them.
But blindness is not only a direct result of incapacity to see reality. It can also be attributed to a clear intention to avoid the facts and the reality those facts present. In the case of the April 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill, the refusal of the experts to carefully and calmly analyze the facts, together with the US Congress’ lack of expertise to objectively study those same facts, forced a group of concerned, very capable citizens, to dig deep into much of a mountain of documentation in order to find the answers that their elected officials and trusted experts did not produce. Their efforts not only confirmed the most feared suspicions – that the Gulf Oil Spill was not an accident –, but also revealed a concerted effort to hide the real causes of the disaster and what was done thereafter.
Even though independent researchers warned about dire consequences to come if the Gulf Oil Spill environmental catastrophe taking place under the waters of the Gulf was not addressed, both the EPA and BP decided to continue with their original approach. While the EPA enforced obsolete standards for cleaning disasters such as the Gulf Oil Spill, forcing BP to keep using Corexit, the British company continued to cover the tracks of one of the largest conspiracies in the history of the oil industry.
After completing Congressional hearings, the investigations into the Deepwater Horizon disaster have been mostly concluded but no answers to the most important questions have been given. As of today, no official answers were provided to inquiries that seek to learn why did BP say there was only one well when there were 3, why did BP drill a 3rd well without a permit, which well was actually capped at seabed level in July, which well was the Relief well C trying to intercept at 18,000ft BSL, was the rogue well actually sealed in September, why were many of the ROV video recordings of the blow out incident doctored with falsified details before presenting them to congressional investigators, why were the ROV cameras re-directed showing a different well after the capping, which well was the Deep Water Horizon rig actually hooked up to when the blow out took place on April 20, 2010.
These questions along with a long list of discrepancies and factually wrong statements issued by BP are addressed on a new document issued by the Gulf Rescue Alliance, a grass-roots organization that a grass roots organization that has been able to unravel some of the complexity in the immense volume of complex and confusing information” and something to the effect that after reviewing the analysis of the footage from other experts that contradicted what was presented to congress in the official investigations – either due to blindness or the amount of information provided by BP or due to their arrogance – while looking at what is deemed by many as an impossible conspiracy. After an independent team of experts headed by geo-hazards specialist BK Lim watched hours and hours of video footage and analyzed page after page of documents, they concluded that the causes and outcomes of the Gulf Oil Spill disaster were not as they presented them in the official investigation and neither as the corporate media informed the public. It is in part from this independent work that the Gulf Rescue Alliance was able to compare Mr. Lim’s work to that of its own experts. The grassroots organization found his research to be sound and decided to bring it to the attention of Congress, the Attorney General’s Office and the Gulf states. As it happens often, time and due diligence are the best aides for those who seek answers in this kind of events, except that in this case, time is a luxury that the people around the dying Gulf coast cannot afford to waste.
The official version of events has been at the very least dampened by willful blindness and complicity to hide the truth and those who should be held accountable once again have run away untouched — for now. May this new real investigation of the events prepared by the Gulf Rescue Alliance, its relentless volunteers and professionals be a new opportunity for more experts and more government representatives to tell the people what really happened on April 20, 2010.
On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform exploded and collapsed into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 workers instantaneously. Since then, much of the information provided by BP, United States government agencies and the corporate media was flawed. As the following information will prove, BP’s orchestrated public relations campaign was created to prevent those involved in the investigation process from reaching the conclusions independent investigators have now found.
Since the US Congress initiated and concluded its search for answers, a mountain of evidence has surfaced and from this evidence independent investigators have found information suggests that BP planned and executed the event that took place in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010. The publication of these new facts is relevant now more than ever given the upcoming federal trial set to start on February 27th. Despite having a set date, BP is working behind the scenes to settle the case and eliminate the need for a trial and that is why putting this information out is so important. It is imperative that what seems to be one of the largest conspiracies in the history of the oil industry be exposed and that the responsible parties be held accountable.
The analysis performed by 30-year geo-hazards expert, BK Lim, almost cost him his own life due to the kind of information he has found on the BP Oil Spill. Mr. Lim worked closely with other independent professionals who have gotten to the same conclusion he did. Mr. Lim and the other professionals worked together  for the best part of the past two years to analyze, digest and publish their findings.
In his report titled An Expert’s Analysis of ROV Film Footage Taken at the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill Site, BK Lim examines the magnitude of his findings. In addition to carefully reviewing the videos, independent professionals separately searched and compared information contained in documents — something the US Congress and its experts did not do. Their goal was to present conclusions that the Trial set to begin on February 27th in New Orleans may not bring to the public due to the large amount of information that exists. As readers may have already heard, judge Cari Barbier has called for a fast and expeditious trial that could impair the public from getting the whole picture.
Why would anyone suggest an expeditious trial and why have government and other investigators given up in their pursuit for understanding what happened in the Gulf of Mexico on April, 2010? One of the reasons may be the complexity of the issue and difficulty they may have to analyze the information available about the largest oil spill in history. But what about the media? Why haven’t they used their endless resources to continue this investigation? Why have they continued to megaphone illogical facts fed to them by BP and government agencies such as the EPA? But isn’t the complexity created by BP in this case the perfect shield, their best protection against public scrutiny? So they thought.
This is not the case for a group of independent, very experienced and well-trained people who took time off their personal and professional lives to bring the facts out in the open. The following are just a few questions that these experts have come up regarding what was considered up until now as “the facts” of the BO oil spill disaster which remain unanswered:
  • Why did BP officials testify to Congress that there was only one well when there were three?
  • Why was the 3rd well drilled without a permit?
  • Which of the 3 wells was actually shown to be capped at seabed level in July of 2010?
  • Was the “rogue well” factually sealed in September?
  • Since all casing was blown out of the rogue well and there is nothing for any mechanical instrument to connect on to, there was no possibility of capping the well which means that huge volumes of oil are continuing to flow into the Gulf unabated.
  •  What are the strategic plans to get this under control?
  • Why were many of the ROV video recordings of the blow out
    incident doctored with falsified details before they were turned over to congressional investigators?
  • Why were the ROV cameras re-directed showing a well with completely different coordinates to demonstrate that the well was capped?
  • Which well was the Deep Water Horizon actually hooked up to when the blow out took place on 20 April 2010?
Geo-hazards expert BK Lim and the other experts spent hundreds of hours reviewing and analyzing video footage and documents and found many anomalies and contradicting information which revealed carelessness or simply blatant lies in the official testimonies. According to Lim’s analysis, some of the statements regarding what happened on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico are physically impossible.
This conclusion was reached after discovering multiple examples of explicit editing of the footage provided by BP. This pre-edited video was the one used during congressional hearings and sent to the media during the investigation process. As it was found, someone carefully spliced video clips to alter dates, times and locations, which made it hard for investigators to make sense of it all or to determine what the cause of the disaster really was. As a consequence, it was almost impossible to challenge BP’s testimony. Mr. Lim, unlike congressional and other experts did carefully analyze images of pipes, risers, blowout preventers and seabed conditions that in some cases were a mile under the surface of the Gulf waters. Given his 30 years of experience and the work he performed for 5 different large oil companies, Mr. Lim had no difficulty assessing and realizing the contradictions.

After going over videos and documentation the in-depth investigation found many revealing details as facts that were omitted from the congressional work. Mr. Lim’s an his team found that a 3rd Macondo well (entitled Well BE) was drilled without a permit. “This is illegal”, says Lim. It is this well the one connected to the Deep Water Horizon platform that exploded on April 20, 2010. Nearby Well A and Well B, which had MMS permits, had to be abandoned and capped earlier than the blowout due to geo-hazard risks. Congressional Records, MMS records and BP testimony omit the existence of a 3rd well and official public statements asserted there was only one well — the one that was reportedly capped. The report made public together with the Gulf Rescue Alliance describes that “Evidently, BP tried to cover up the fact of 3 wells by calling them “3 leaks” in the fallen riser.” This is supported by the fact that although the original explosion occurred on the 20th of April, no major oil leaking was visible anywhere other than close to the Deep Water Horizon platform. The oil says the document only began to be visible until the 22nd of April. According to Mr. Lim, the only way a 5-story high, multi-ton’d blow out preventer (BOP) could have been thrown over 70 feet away from its original position is the execution of an artificial detonation of large magnitude which would have been purposefully set.
Figure 157. Click to enlarge image.
The document titled An Expert’s Analysis of ROV Film Footage Taken at the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill Disaster Site was first drafted in June 2010 and revised 29 January 2012. In this document Geo-hazards specialist BK Lim points out 6 important discrepancies.
First, that the severed casing at 2 had not been bent, twisted and broken off during the sinking of the Deep Water Horizon. If it had been, the casing could not have maintained its almost circular shape. It appears more likely to have been either cut or torn-off as in “blown apart”. This itself rules out the severed casing being the mid section of the riser since there would not be any reason for the riser to be blown apart anywhere in its mid section.
Second, the diameter of the casing at 2 is evidently much larger than the diameter of the bent riser at 1. They do not appear to look the same at all. The casing at 2 appears more likely to be part of the casing coming directly out of the seabed than being connected to the riser coming from the top of the Blow Out Preventer (BOP).
Third, assuming BP’s official version, how could the second leak (480 ft away from the BOP) have a larger volume of oil/gas flow than the first leak (1) directly on top of the BOP? If the oil and gas were flowing out of the same riser pipe, should not the first leak be the larger of the two?
Fourth, leak (1) is about 70 ft above the seabed. Could oil and gas flow downwards past the punctured bend at 1 to reach the second leak 480 ft away at seabed level? If some oil and gas did leak through (1), then leak 2 should be spewing less oil and gas than leak (1) – see discrepancy #3. But even BP admitted leak 2 to be the large of the two.
Fifth, leak 2 appeared in all videos and images to spew more oil than gas and with more ferocity than leak (1). How can that be when all the pressure would have leaked out at (1)?
Sixth, Well A and the Blow Out Preventer (BOP) was south of the second leak location. So if well A was the source, the oil and gas would have flowed northwards. But in all the ROV videos, the casing was coming out of the seabed from the north with the oil and gas flowing southwards. So where is the connection?
“Of all the inaccuracies that came out of the Gulf disaster, the most preposterous has been the “3- leaks-on-the-riser” story. Figures 165-0a to 165-0c were the first few schematic illustrations of BP’s blowout incident provided by BP to the public. To oil and gas extraction industry professionals, the illustrations defied logic to such an extreme that it was believed the schematics were deliberately drawn by cartoonists to confuse the uninformed public.”
Figure 165-5. Click to enlarge image.
According to this deep investigation, there were many inaccuracies and controversial circumstances surrounding the explosion of the Deep Water Horizon Platform. For example, the unlikelihood of the sudden breaking of the super-strong riser in calm water, how a third open-ended leak, leak (3), could be possible when it was in a location of the riser that was beyond the completely severed riser at the second leak (2), tampered latitudes and longitudes on the video footage of well #3, video footage of the same well that has coordinates that have not been doctored, and so on. When Mr. Lim compared the video, he was able to discover that “Leak (2)” had to be the blown crater of well #3. “This is irrefutably shown in Figure 165-5 with the right coordinates in the few un-doctored videos we located”, concluded Lim.
Another anomaly in BP’s presentation is its reporting of “3 leaks on a badly twisted riser” which would be a way to hide the fact that there were 3 wells. According to government records, BP had been given permits for two of the wells which the company had capped prior to the blowout. Therefore, the 3rd well was the one that blew out and, also per government records, BP had not obtained a permit for it.
“If there were really 3 leaks on a single riser, BP could have easily reduced three into one controllable leak at the source by cutting the riser at the top of the Blowout Preventer (BOP),” says the document issued by Lim and the Gulf Rescue Alliance. This is exactly what BP said to have done in May, when it said it had installed a Lower Marine Riser Package or LMRP. The question here is, why did BP waited for 40 days in order to perform this procedure if it was the one that would solve the problem? Instead, BP wasted time carrying out what Mr. Kim calls “non-standard and easy-to-fail attempts” such as the top kill, junk shots, hot hats, and so on. In total, BP waited 87 days before closing down the flow located at Well A, which it did on July 15th. The report also points out to the lack of oil or gas leaks before 5pm Central Daylight Savings Time on April 22, 2010.
“The ROV inspections of the wellhead, marine riser and BOP in the immediate aftermath of the incident show that the mega oil spill could have been easily averted with several standard industry options. It was the sort of controllable rig blowout-fire situation the industry expects and routinely train for. It could have been recovered safely without ending in a disastrous mega oil spill.”
The first gas blowout that took place on April 20, 2010 that killed 11 drilling crew on the Deepwater Horizon rig was not responsible for the massive oil spill. “It is my considered opinion, based on the 100’s of hours spent analyzing the hundreds of hours of underwater ROV footage of the 3 wells, the crater, the BOP, and riser, that a detonated explosion occurred within the well on April 22, shortly after 5pm Central Daylight Savings Time, which is what induced a bottom hole blowout that unleashed the full power of the gushing oil from the Macondo reservoir,” asserted BK Lim. “Nothing short of a massive, purposefully detonated explosion could have created that effect.”
Figure 165-1a. Click to enlarge image.
The document supported by images of video footage and graphic illustrations also contends that due to the fact that the Blowout Preventer (BOP) was already destroyed and its remains were all over the sea floor, BP’s videos that show the BOP still standing and without any gas leaks and that were dated April 23 to mid May, 2010, corresponds to footage that was doctored to reloop itself. This video as explained before corresponded to the situation previous to the April 22 detonation that occurred around 5pm Central Daylight Savings Time.
In its presentation of “the facts”, BP said that leak (1), was right at the spot where the riser (bent riser pipe) located on the 70-ft Blowout Preventer (BOP). The company said that most of the oil gushing out into the Gulf was from leak (2). The smaller gas leak at well A could not be capped until the real rogue well (BE), aka leak (2), was sealed or bottom-killed at 18,000 ft bsl (below sea level) (reported since July 2010).
As images now show the third leak (3) was only a small gas leak that was flowing out  of the open end of a drill pipe. Figure 165-0 gives the various schematic illustrations of what was stated to be the 3 leak points on the riser, based on BP-sourced information. Besides adding the labels for clarity, the only other item added to figure 165-0a was the NW SE fault line. This fault line, says Mr. Lim, was the critical factor in the shallow gas problems encountered in all the 3 wells.
“Simple logic dictates that it was physically impossible for these 3 leaks to occur on a single riser from a single blowout. Certainly not the way BP explained it. Figure 157 in my article entitled Another Physical Impossibility – 2 Leaks On The Broken Riser gives some of the discrepancies noted on Leak (1) and Leak (2) as early as Aug 2010. Note that leak (3) was allegedly sealed by capping the open-ended drill pipe.”
According to the investigation, visual proof strongly suggests that while BP had crews carrying out doomed to fail procedures, it also had more people setting up another Blowout Preventer (BOP) and reattaching the bent riser at well A.
Besides the great discrepancies explained above, Mr. Lim and his team found even more anomalies:
The open ended 5½ inch drill pipe at leak (3) is of different physical dimension from the pipe (casing) at leak (2) and the bent riser on top of the BOP at leak (1). See the marked differences in figures 165-1b and 165-2. This means they could not have been attached to each other and, therefore, are not from the same set of mechanical equipment for a series of leaks on a single well’s riser.
Figure 165-1b. Click to enlarge image.
At leak (3) the 5½ inch drill pipe should have been inside the 21 inch main riser pipe with the attached choke, kill, booster and hydraulic supply lines. It is physically impossible to have a long “naked” drill-pipe stripped off its 21-inch riser pipe casing at the mid-section of the riser string. More impossible still is the fact that it was sticking vertically out of the seabed with the weak gas plume. The naked standing drill-pipe could only be possible if it was ejected from the blown well itself.
If the riser was carrying the same drill pipe string (5000 ft long), how did the pipe at leak (2) suddenly become several times larger than the drill pipe shown at leak (3), immediately after the blowout? This is physically impossible.
In comparison with the other broken segments of the riser string lying on the seafloor, why was leak (2) so special and different if it was also broken from the same riser string? Fact: leak (2) could not possibly be from the same riser string.
BP claimed that leak (3) was sealed by capping the drill pipe. One could then logically ask why couldn’t the drill-pipe within the riser at leak (2) be similarly capped? There were many reasons they couldn’t. The main reason? Leak (2) was not a leak but rather the blown crater of well no. 3 (well BE) and not the broken riser carrying the drill-pipe within.
Leak (3) was undeniably an open ended, disconnected pipe just as leak (2) was. There could only be one severed open end in the riser segment still connected to the BOP. It can only be leak (2) or leak (3), but not both.
How did the oil “jump” across leak (3) and continue to flow to leak (2) as illustrated in 165-0a and b?
The later illustration (165-0c) which came out corrected the leak (3) anomaly by placing it after leak (2). Only problem is, then, how do you explain the “open ended pipe” at leak(2)?
Figure 165-2 and BP’s investigation report confirm that there were two 5½ inch drill-pipes within the bent riser. This means that the drill-pipe string within the riser was already disjointed near the BOP. How could oil/gas flow through a disjointed drill-pipe to leak out at leak (3) more than 500ft from the BOP?
The black oil plume at leak (2) was obviously more voluminous than the lighter orange-brown gas leak at leak (3) or leak (1). The color of the oil/gas plumes is consistent with the differences in the flow rate and volume noted in all the three leaks. Fact: the oil in each of the 3 “riser leaks” are not riser leaks but, in fact,g from different ground sources.
The videos show that the riser string was completely severed at several points and all the severed sections showed no gas/oil leaks. If Leak (1) was on the same riser string as leak (2) and leak (3), why was it not showing any oil/gas leaks until after mid May 2010 (more than 20 days later)?
The earliest video on 23 April 2010 clearly showed a steep-sided blowout crater with no “surface” riser going into the crater. The oil-spewing pipe at the base of the deep crater, had to originate from the well below. With no visible supply of oil (through the surface riser), the obvious oil supply had to be vertically beneath the crater. This further confirms that leak (2) was the blown third well (BE). See the close-up view at Figure 165-5.
The bent riser on top of the BOP was not leaking at all in the early videos before BP publicly broadcast leak (1) in mid May (20 days later). If leak (1) at well A was the primary leak, it does not make sense to show the secondary leak (2) first. Not unless the primary leak (1) at the well was non-existent and the scene had to be set up first to portray what was being stated.
Setting up well A as the “primary leaking well” was not in the original plan. It was a backup plan. This explains the more than 20 days media blackout on the supposedly primary leak(1).
The riser piping could not have bent and twisted like a pretzel and yet still have remained intact.
The riser string did, in fact, break at several places as seen in figures 165-1a and 165-1b. Again how could oil flow through these “severed discontinuities” in the riser? Fact: There was no oil flow until April 22nd, as the ROV inspections showed.
Figure 165-1a. Click to enlarge image.
The clearest evidence is the photo of the vertically standing riser section (speared into the seabed). There was no oil spill emanating from it or in its vicinity. This clearly refutes the official story that a neutrally buoyant riser with floats could dig itself beneath the seabed (like a buried pipeline) only to spew out oil hundreds of feet away. Again, this is physically impossible.
If the well was already gushing out oil from the instance of the first blowout on 20 April 2010, why was there no immediate oil spewing out of the broken riser as it was sinking. The rig fire was in fact fed by more than 700,000 gallons (60% of max capacity) of diesel stored onboard the rig. Why was more than 60% of fuel still onboard the rig at the end of its long 3 months drilling campaign? Why was BP so certain free flowing crude from the well was fueling the rig fire, despite all evidence to the contrary?
It is now confirmed (see figure 165-3) that it took less than 16 seconds for the riser to fully bend from an upright (slightly inclined) position. The Deep Water Horizon (falsely reported as having sunk at 10:22 Central Daylight Savings Time) could not have sunk 5000ft to the sea bottom within a minute. Thus the riser pipe had to be deliberately broken near to the BOP; possibly less than 1000ft. Otherwise, how could a marine riser which could withstand 80 mph Hurricane Ida, break at mid-section in very calm water? A shorter break segment from the BOP could also explain the extremely fast bending event. Now the question is how did the riser break?
The fact that there was no visible oil gushing out of the broken end of the riser as it sank, further confirms that the base plug at the bottom of the well had not yet breached completely (more of this in later articles) at 10:22 Central Daylight Savings Time, April 22, 2010.
If this was the case, why did BP, blog forums and the Coast Guard repeatedly stress that “oil from the reservoir was freely flowing into the rig through the riser and feeding the intense fire on the burning rig”?
ROV inspection of the BOP and the seafloor around well (BE) on April 22, 2010 showed no signs of gas plumes, blow holes or oil emanating from the well head. That would explain why the bent riser did not have any gas leaks on 22 April where most of the doctored-relooped footage were shown. Then 20 days later, BP showed the same bent riser with the orange-brown gas plume (at well A). If BP could turn the gas leaks on and off, they should have been able to quickly stop the oil spill. It is my professional opinion that BP purposefully switched wells to publicly stage the capping event on a well that never hit pay dirt.
Even if the riser was still intact (despite the twists and bends), how could the supposedly “long riser string” plant itself inside a deep (at least 5m) crater without disturbing the overlying cemented drilling mud and sediment?
BP’s schematics showed less than 4,000 ft of riser. What happened to the remaining 1,000 ft? Further, the 700 odd ft segment from well A to well BE (crater) has a totally different degree of twisting and bends from the next 3,000 ft segment. A falling elongated but uniform body like the riser does not twist and bend midway in calm water. The bottom section had to break away first and the hanging riser dropped almost vertically under its own weight as depicted in the diagrammatic illustration of BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout published on 30 July 2010. Consequently, the “speared location” would be centered near its original base (or well). This, again, points to the location of the third well (BE) which was fraudulently depicted as leak (2) on a fallen riser. With so much irrefutable evidence, leak (2) cannot be just a secondary leak on the riser but is, in fact, the broken well itself.
With this mountain of proof about what really happened at the Deep Water Horizon rig on April 20, 2010 it is hard to fathom any legal ruling that does not examine and consider the facts exposed herein. Any trial or private negotiation to establish a settlement  — on any grounds — that does not take this information into account are automatically rendered as criminal as the crimes this information suggests took place on April 20, 2010 and the days that  followed. Only a careful and detailed analysis of these hard facts will provide a clear picture to allow anyone to reach a verdict and to estimate the extent of the damages caused to the Gulf of Mexico, its people and the environment in that region; damages that multiply  exponentially everyday due to the continuous and unabated flow of crude oil and hydrocarbons from the bottom of the sea into the waters of the Gulf.
Image 165-0
Image 165-1a
Image 165-1a alt
Image 165-b
Image 165-2
 Congress re: 2nd Explosion
Figure 165-3
Figure 165-4
Figure 165-5
Figure 165-5a
Figure 165-6





The Battle Of Athens: Fighting for Liberty, Restoring the Rule of Law

The Battle Of Athens: Fighting for Liberty, Restoring the Rule of Law When veterans of World War II returned to their homes in Athens, Tennessee ...
by psychoatty49 1 year ago 3,035 views

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the ...
This is the EXACT reason the second amendment was drafted.
by JeremyHopper007 2 months ago 15,022 views

The Battle of Athens(Tennessee): Restoring the Rule of Law [A True Story]

The Battle of Athens (also known as the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens & Etowah Tennessee against the local ...
by BAZYRKYR 2 days ago 725 views

Voter Fraud : The Battle Of Athens,Tennessee 1946 : A True Story

if voter fraud keeps up i can see this definately happening again...well maybe..if people would grow some.lol
by GNut1980 3 days ago 162 views

The Battle of Athens Tenn 1946

This iz one of those moveez that you don't see all the time and is very hard to find. Although a movie the was an true account dated back in 1946 ...
If you vote then the government will win. You are no more than...
by SupremeMindz 1 year ago 3,488 views


Sunday, February 26, 2012


It's economic warfare against the Greek People and the enemy-our common enemy-are ratcheting things up for them.  I fear if Greece revolts against the Rothschilds NATO may be called in to "stabilize" the country.



Saturday, February 25, 2012








Shouldn't be a surprise. What must be done is for Ron Paul to take the energy of his supporters and direct them to mount recall election campaigns in their own towns and build a support base, a political base that WONT commit vote fraud... among other crimes. Ron Paul must direct his supporters to do this or this will be just another wasted year.



Thursday, February 23, 2012


I think I'm the the position of many out in the real world. I'm strapped for cash. Feeling the time crunch that I must do something soon or be caught up with the unprepared masses and get overrun. I'm also feeling the responsibility for my immediate and extended family whether they are preparing or not. It's a huge burden to bear when you have been raised to be the "man" of any situation that might affect you and your family.
That being said, I'm also a logical, common sense person. I approach things like this:
1. Look at the situation
2. Determine the problem
3. Find the solution
4. Implement the solution
I think this fits most of my generation who were raised by parents born before, during, or shortly after the Great Depression. A "can do" type of attitude that never finds a way to quit or give up.
I also have a fairly typical family makeup of people ranging from one year old to mid seventies with the majority being thirty to sixty and most being in good to excellent physical condition.
So let's look at the problem most of us are stuck in, the "imperfect retreat."
I think we can all agree that the generally accepted ideas of being hidden from view, off the main road, 100+ miles from heavily populated cities, etc, all are the best case scenarios but not something that many, if not most, of us can or will be able to attain.
First let's look at the situation: We own or are renting a home. Can we change our situation or not? If so, how drastically can we change it with what we have available to us right now. Most of us will find ourselves in one of two or three different situations. We can stay where we are, we can move a short distance to another place, or maybe combine with other family members at one of their homes, hopefully in a better situation than our own. Let's take each of those individually.
I won't go into all of the preparation requirements since those have been and are covered in greater detail that I could cover here. I mainly want to concentrate on the decision making processes and how to hopefully arrive at a suitable solution. So here we go.
First, staying where we are. In most cases, this is probably the worst and most difficult situation to make work. I personally could easily be caught in this situation and I don't look forward to trying to make it work but let's assume that is our only option. I know this is the case for many so let's make it work.
I'll take my situation as an example. I live on a main street in a small town of 2,500-3,500 population. What are my challenges? To me, first and foremost is security. The reason I put that first is that if I can't protect what I do, build, stash, grow, or otherwise prepare, then I've wasted my resources and time. So the first step is to honestly assess your situation based on what you expect to happen in a worst case scenario. Where are the threats most likely going to come from? What direction and in what form? Can you slow them down and/or stop them? What can you do to aid yourself in being able to accomplish these things? Fences? Gates? Window and door bars? Think through the situation based on your individual situation and resources.
You have to form some sort of defensive plan and come to some understanding of how successful you feel you can be, based on the number of people you will have helping defend the site. I would include some thoughts about quickly deploying traps, tanglefoot wire, or anything else to make you place not worth the effort in hopes that they will just move on to easier targets. By doing that you cause them to expend precious and sometimes irreplaceable energy, on someone other than you. By the time they finally return to you you might be even better prepared and they will be most likely less prepared and easier to deal with.
So in this situation, I feel defense will be extremely crucial. This will of course include multiple weapons and a large amount of ammunition to last through a siege type situation. You can take these thought and translate them on out to the logical end with the other supplies you will need to survive, such as food and water since you will most likely be very confined and unable to scrounge and forage safely for some period of time.
This situation will be extremely hard to survive with only a couple of people so you must work towards having as many as possible to help rotate the duties of keeping watch, preparing meals, sanitation, etc. My speculation would be that you would need to look at a 30-60 day siege until you will be able to begin to move somewhat freely and to get outside for other activities such as gardening or tending animals unless you can have those things attached to your main house through some protected passageway.
Obviously, this is a huge hill to climb to make this work in any populated area even in the suburbs. Can it work? Yes, I believe it can but you will have to be brutally honest with yourself and also prepared mentally and physically to do what will be necessary when the time comes. Remember, I'm a logical, common sense, realist.
Now let's look at the other two situations together since they are basically the same. I'm assuming that if you move to another family member's home then it would be at least farther from a populated area than the situation I've just described. Otherwise. it's then just a matter of which city home is the most defendable and then building on that together.
So assuming that the location you can move to on your own or to another family member's home is outside of a populated area to some degree, let's say 10-15 miles out into the country. So let's talk about the differences of the situations.
With the city situation I said security needs to be job one. With the semi-rural situation security is still job one but in very different ways. In the city, the house becomes your "fortress" and you build on that. In the semi-rural to rural situation the area around you becomes much more important to your security than in the city. This is because you have much more area to control the access to your home and therefore your supplies. Concentrate more on your avenues of approach. Where will the threats most likely come from? Are there main roads nearby? Are there any natural barriers that you can use like ridges, lake,s rivers, etc?
Again, I'll use my situation as an example. My choice has been to use my parents home as the gathering place for our family. It is approximately 15 miles from a population area of 30,000 people. It sits back off the road a short ways with good view from the house to the road and some wooded area and a pond 75 yards behind the house.
Again, in a defensive sense, this is not an extremely easy to defend area. However, there are many more things that you can do in this situation than in the city because you have room to maneuver. The downside of that is that you also have more area to watch and control.
In that situation you have to make the terrain and surrounding situation work for you by constructing traps, digging ant-vehicular ditches, digging concealed fighting positions in various places to allow as much movement between them as concealed as possible, etc. There are many good available information sources on the Internet for accomplishing these things. Be inventive and read, read, read.
Have a good stock of sandbags and the sand needed to fill them on hand. Many of these final preparations will be done once everyone has assembled. Everyone will be anxious and will need something to keep them busy so put that energy to work. But have the plan laid out in advance and ready to implement. This is absolutely critical. If you don't have it laid out you will be flailing around and losing the confidence of all the others that are depending on you to lead them.
Again, approach things in a realistic and honest manner. The people that you will most likely be having to deal with will not be trained in the arts of stealth and [militarily precise] attack, so just put yourself in the average person's shoes that will be trying to rob you. Doing that makes it pretty easy to understand where you will most need to protect and focus your attention.
Being removed by a few miles from a populated area will most likely buy you some time unless you are on a major thoroughfare between two populated areas where people might be traveling from one city to another. If you are in a direction not directly toward another city that will buy you a little additional time before you have to confront the hordes leaving the city. Maybe a couple of extra days which could be extremely significant in your final preparations. Take advantage of that delay, as it very well could save countless lives.
Now that I've got you thinking through some possibilities, then let's look at some of the other issues that I an many others will have to deal with.
We see the term OPSEC used all over the place these days. Basically what that means is keeping quiet and staying as hidden as possible. In the city that's almost impossible. Hordes will be going from house to house looking for the easy targets. (So, as we discussed we're going to make it hard for them.)
Let's take a generator for example. How do we run a generator when everyone else has no power without saying very loudly "COME TO MY HOUSE!" This is something that will have to be thought out and planned for in advance. My plans are to bury my generator in a root cellar of sorts with a well-muffled [but fully externally-vented] exhaust pipe. This could be done in or out of the city to hide what you have. The area could also serve many other uses to include as a root cellar and storage for all types of things. [JWR Adds: A Carbon Monoxide (CO) detector is a must!] If done in the right way it could possibly even be hidden enough to avoid being found by all but the most observant looter. You can apply this concept to many other things too.
I try to use items that can be easily hidden and/or moved if needed to another location. A good example of that is portable solar panels for charging batteries. It will cost you a bit more up front but they are also easier to hide and, if necessary, to move. Further, if you have to bug out you can grab one or two to take with you. Nothing is permanent.
This does require some planning but again the cost is mostly in labor as far as the preparation goes. That is my mindset, spend as little money as possible but get as prepared as possible.
All of the aforementioned thought processes can be and should be applied to the entire gamut of preparing. It does not matter what area it is, the process is still the same, observe the problem, identify the problem, weight the alternatives, find a solution to the problem, and apply the solution.
One final note that I think is probably the most important of any of this. This is all about one thing in the end, SURVIVAL--continuing to exist on the planet. Hopefully with some semblance of our existing comforts--at least with the basics.
That being said, once you have whatever preparations you have in place at you perfect or imperfect retreat, what's left?
What's left is the assurance of your continued survival. You absolutely must have a plan B, C, D, and so on, to keep you and your family surviving. I'm in the process of doing all that I have mentioned above. Are my preparations complete? Absolutely not. But one thing that is very high on my priority list is the ability implement those contingency plans.
My additional planning goes something like this. I figure [that in a worst case] at some point I will be forced from my retreat. What then? Well, if you haven't planned for that eventuality then you become one of the dispossessed horde. So what should you do to avoid this?
First, you should never, ever store all of your supplies at your central retreat location. Depending on the situation, store enough to get through the initial siege. More in the city and less in the rural area. Establish caches, preferably buried or at some reasonably secure, hidden location. Notice that "caches" is plural. Don't place one cache with any certainty that it won't be found. Also, when you do place them be sure not to follow any recognizable pattern. Also be sure that numerous trustworthy people in your family are aware of the locations in case something happens to you. You could also, as time and situation permit, dig some larger "foxholes" for temporary shelter and cover to move to and avoid being caught by the hordes. It gives you a place for a hasty retreat and also a place to fight from if that is necessary or just a place to hide until things blow over and you can return to your retreat.
Next, think about what you will need to store in the caches. When you are initially forced to leave your retreat you will mainly need water, guns, ammunition, fire starting equipment and possibly shelter related items. Some non-cook foods would be helpful too. This cache needs to be reasonably close by and easy to get to to resupply you with what you had to leave behind at the retreat.
The remaining caches can be more fully stocked in the hopes that you will find another shelter to move into until such time as you can eventually return and retake your retreat.
Even in the city you can find somewhere to bury a small cache of items like this to keep you equipped and on the move to the next cache, then the next cache, etc. It takes a little planning but not a huge outlay of resources. But again there some outlay in the form of labor. If nothing ever happens you dig them up and use the items for daily use. Nothing lost but lots gained if they are ever needed in extremis.
As I said at the start, this was not meant to be all-inclusive. My intent was to get you thinking, and to possibly help those in situations like mine--where I realize that I cannot put my family in the "perfect retreat" situation. What I can do though is give them the chance, with some luck and God's help, to survive.







For political resistance movements, the urban operational area has historically provided both a great deal of danger, as well as ample opportunity. If even a large minority of the civilian population supports the resistance, and the majority is either neutral, or has been alienated by the actions of the regime, the resistance will be able to survive and continue the fight. The classical concept of a resistance movement controlling the rural countryside while forcing the regime to function solely in large, built-up urban areas still has merit, but a multi-pronged approach wherein rural guerrillas use interdiction missions as their primary modus operandi to prevent regime utilization of lines of communication (LOC) and supply routes in rural areas, while urban guerrillas utilize raids and ambushes on security force facilities, infrastructure, and personnel in built-up areas, while the subversive underground continues its campaign of subversion and sabotage against regime-specific infrastructure, is the future of successful resistance movements.

The ready access to portable, high-resolution video recording devices, even in pocket-sized cell phones, as well as the easy upload of such video recordings to the internet, provides an instant worldwide audience for the resistance to spread its message. The ability of the regime to readily identify fleeing resistance personnel in rural terrain, while certainly not precluding the successful execution of a rural guerrilla campaign in suitable environments, such as alpine areas and thickly wooded terrain, and jungle-like swamp terrain, does offer numerous obvious advantages to the resistance movement who can utilize urban environments to their advantage.

Cities are the centers of human activity, but each city possesses its own unique characteristics. These characteristics are the basis of METT-TC analysis of the environment for mission-planning. Whatever else characterizes a given built-up area, its location may wholly or partially limit its development and thus determine the external form and dimension of the activity. Just as no two cities are alike externally, no city is uniform internally. A city is composed of various different nuclei or neighborhoods. There are business, industrial, and service areas, as well as residential neighborhoods that may range from inner-city ghettos to comfortable, affluent suburbs. Depending on the city and its local surrounding environment, as well as the socio-political attitudes of the civilian population, there may be large wooded parks and “green-belts” in the midst of the built-up areas.

While a truly rural area has the potential to be completely self-sustaining in its essential needs, an urban area can never fulfill all of its own essential survival needs. The resources, goods, and services that residents of an urban area need as well as the goods and services it provides to other communities and/or the surrounding areas determine the essential function of a given city. Included in the standard functions that determine a city's purpose for existance may include economic, political, religious, educational, residential, or any combination of these.

Despite the differences from one built-up area to the next urban areas possess certain similarities that provide us with some general characteristics that influence the inherent nature of guerrilla tactical operations in urban areas. The nature of cities offer some critical challenges to the military/paramilitary planner as well as the operative. Successful planning must be far more detailed than is normally required for even the most challenging rural missions. As the saying claims, “Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.”

The nature of a city involved in a guerrilla resistance favors the defender who is native to the city.

REST HERE:http://mountainguerrilla.blogspot.com/2012/02/resistance-considerations-for-urban.html


People have talked a long time about the "rifleman's ambush" as a tactic for irregular forces to use against an oppressive government occupation.  The term is pretty simple, and the concept is pretty simple, unfortunately the execution is anything but simple.

But here is how it would go down in a perfect world.  Say the Wolverine bubbas are taking on the Cuban Commandos.

First, sectors of fire and priorities of fire.  The bubbas on each flank need to shoot at the first and last enemy infantryman and work their way in.  The two guys in the middle need to have an arranged middle point and work their way towards the flanks from there.  Once a bubba has cleared his sector, he needs to immediately transition to a secondary and help out his neighbor.  The priority of fires should be machine guns (immediate threat), radio men (a delayed threat), and leadership.

What this does is deconflicts so that three bubbas don't all shoot at the point man and give away their position against a highly trained aggressive force.  If every bubba is a good shot, and makes contact with their first shot, they managed to take out the point man, the trail man, a machine gunner, and a radio man.  The infantry squad that started with 9 men is now down to 5 combat effective men.  The second shot we can say will be less effective, so another 4 shots takes out only 2 more men, and the third round of fire takes out one.  In four volleys of fire the communist infantry squad has been reduced from 9 men to 2 men, and the last volley has four bubbas aiming at two bad guys.  Each bubba only fired five shots.

Pretty much every bolt action hunting rifle carries about five shots (unless it is a Magnum caliber, then usually only three).  Four bubbas, four rifles, 5 shots each, 20 rounds total, one enemy squad down.  That is economy of force.  Now, this only works if the Bubbas are trained, proficient, and able to work as a team.

If we assign a different hit probability to each volley then the "rifleman's ambush" would need more ammo, more time, and have a much greater likelihood of failure.  If each volley has a 25% success rate, it would take nine volleys to reduce the enemy squad, which is one reload for our bubbas.  With a 12.5% success rate then only one in eight bullets is effective, meaning our bubbas have to fire 56 bullets to reduce the enemy squad, which means 2 reloads (total of 15 volleys). 

Things to think about.  Marksmanship matters.  Coordination matters.  Time matters, the longer a fight goes on the worse it is for our bubbas. 

rest here:  http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2012/02/economy-of-force.html



Tuesday, February 21, 2012


CAFR School: The Public Reading Of The CAFR

Rate This
In this dramatically droll and boring school board meeting, the school district’s board is visited by its chosen and contracted auditing firm, for which a representative of that firm monotonously explains to the board the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that it has completed for the district. I am posting this recorded school board video recording not for your viewing enjoyment, but for proof positive that all school boards and other local, district, county, and state governments are fully aware of and must acquiesce and approve their CAFR reports in a board or council meeting. Do not ever let any government tell you that they do not know what the CAFR is. They are lying. They may not be able to read it, but they know it exists and know they aren’t supposed to know what it really says! Ignorance is no excuse for malfeasance…
CAFR discussion begins at 2:23 in this video:

Let there be no doubt about this standard government accounting practice.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 21, 2012