There are over 400 three-letter agencies in the U.S., many of which have been acting as their own government for over a hundred years, going unchecked while operating outside the Constitution. Their overreach has sought to control every industry from the top down, every consumer and small business, and blaze straight through the Federal Reserve and financial systems into everyone’s wallet. If there is one big takeaway from the Supreme Court ruling, it is the fact that it is far past time to put an end to this shadow government who has worked to remove the freedoms of the American people and undermine the Constitutional process.
“Congress certainly has not conferred a like authority upon EPA anywhere else in the Clean Air Act. The last place one would expect to find it is in the previously little-used backwater of Section 111(d).” – Chief Justice Roberts
Through their radical “climate change” agenda, they are seeking to destroy the environment, farmers, plant life, and food supply, while building a smart control grid, an unaffordable and inadequate energy supply system, and a reckless automotive industry, as they corral people into cities and try to force them out of their homes into poverty. There is only one way to achieve these so-called “climate change” goals, and it is through mass depopulation through this destruction. This global agenda must be stopped, and it must be stopped now. It can be done, but it will require a global unity, citizens across the world, and legislatures to block and overpower the globalists behind this scheme. They are counting on everyone failing – let’s prove them wrong.
• Supreme Court ruled the EPA doesn’t have the authority to create generation shifting in new energy, but Congress does.
• The EPA is still authorized to regulate greenhouse gases from existing and new power plants, vehicles, gas, and oil, but not reduce the level of emissions based on “new” energy sources that haven’t been made law by Congress, which ultimately would have caused such a reduction in emissions from some power plants that it could have put them out of business.
• Democrats have rushed to the scene, pressuring the EPA to carry out a multitude of actions that are allegedly within their authority, but are they?
• Multiple states are taking action locally, and more legal cases are underway on both side of the climate change debate.
• Congress never voted to make CO2 a “pollutant” to be regulated by the EPA – the Supreme Court did long ago.
• This new ruling could put a hiccup in the electric vehicle industry until Congress takes further steps, but they’ve already made significant moves in that direction.
• Supreme Court rulings on CDC, OSHA, and EPA raise red flag that three-letter agencies are overstepping their authority. What does this mean moving forward?
• What is happening to farmers in the Netherlands under the guise of “climate change” should be a major warning for Americans and Congress to act now to stop this charade.
The Case Against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Nutshell
WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.
Rather than rehashing this case that has been widely covered in news outlets, to put it in simple terms, this was an interesting case because the Obama administration Power Plan Act and ACE Rule never went into effect, and Trump never got it squashed due to 22 states filing lawsuits, but the Biden regime is clearly working on a plan that would produce similar regulations, so West Virginia, North Dakota, Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC, The North American Coal Corporation, and a dozen consolidated petitions, pursued the case to nip this in the bud before it went any further, despite the EPA alleging that it was “moot.”
The Clean Air Act, first implemented in 1970, authorized the EPA to regulate power plants by setting a “standard of performance” for their emissions of certain pollutants into the air. As Roberts pointed out, “that standard may be different for new and existing plants, but in each case it must reflect the “best system of emission reduction” that the Agency has determined to be adequately demonstrated for the particular category.” For existing plants, the states implement those requirements, issuing rules restricting emissions from within their borders. But in 2015, the EPA decided they were going to issue a new rule for existing coal-fired power plants that would require them to reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.
The case was about whether the EPA had the authority to create new regulations based on generation shifting – ultimately forcing power plants into natural gas, solar and wind. It falls under the “major questions” legal doctrine that requires congressional authorization. However, this case did not get into the fact that the EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide in the first place, especially since it was never a law created by Congress, and instead was a ruling passed by a previous Supreme Court.
Essentially, the Clean Air Act established three main regulatory programs to control air pollution from stationary sources: New Source Performance Standards program of Section 111 (pertains to this case), the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, and the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program.
According to the Sierra Club, they claim that 357 coal-fired power plants have shut down, with 173 still active. This is a win for the 2030 Agenda globalists who wanted coal-fired power plants to be reduced to 27% of the overall power generation, as they are now down to 21.8% according to the Environmental Integrity Project.
The Ruling and The Big Takeaways
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.” – Chief Justice Roberts
That single statement sums up the ruling, however, there are several other interesting points. For example, Roberts stated, “At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme or a set of cap-and-trade schemes for carbon. Congress had consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program. It has also declined to enact similar measures, such as a carbon tax.” This essentially cut that option out of the equation as a future plan the EPA may be working on, unless of course Congress should agree to this absurdity.
The EPA is still authorized to regulate greenhouse gases from existing and new power plants, vehicles, gas, and oil, but not reduce the level of emissions based on “new” energy sources that haven’t been made law by Congress. However, as Roberts noted, “Indeed, the emissions limit the Clean Power Plan established for existing power plants was actually stricter than the cap imposed by the simultaneously published standards for new plants.“
Roberts pointed out that the “EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across various sectors.“This single point alone should give everyone pause as to what the globalist-run EPA is really after – control. They not only want to eliminate jobs and increase everyone’s energy bill estimated at a $200 billion increase, they want to force businesses into compliance to shut them down, and steer the U.S. away from affordable and beneficial fossil fuels while implemented a new energy system that will never withstand the power needed to keep the lights on.
Roberts closing paragraph made it clear that this authority rests with Congress:
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.”
Overreach is an Understatement with 3-Letter Agencies
Roberts makes it a point to show the sheer overreach of three-letter agencies, by citing previous cases. This of course is a mere fraction of the 430+ agencies operating outside of the constitution and using their authority to dictate what people can and cannot do, to fabricate, mislead, and even falsely imprison, all with the intention of causing harm to people and the economy. This has been observed repeatedly with the FDA, DOD, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, BLM, DOE, DOT, IRS, and on and on it goes.
In a previous case against the EPA, Roberts stated “Our decision in Utility Air addressed another question regarding EPA’s authority—namely, whether EPA could construe the term ‘air pollutant,’ in a specific provision of the Clean Air Act, to cover greenhouse gases. 573 U. S., at 310. Despite its textual plausibility, we noted that the Agency’s interpretation would have given it permitting authority over millions of small sources, such as hotels and office buildings, that had never before been subject to such requirements. Id., at 310, 324. We declined to uphold EPA’s claim of “unheralded” regulatory power over ‘a significant portion of the American economy.’”
“In Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs. (2021), we concluded that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could not, under its authority to adopt measures ‘necessary to prevent the . . . spread of ‘ disease, institute a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to the COVID–19 pandemic. We found the statute’s language a ‘wafer-thin reed‘ on which to rest such a measure, given “the sheer scope of the CDC’s claimed authority,” its “unprecedented” nature, and the fact that Congress had failed to extend the moratorium after previously having done so.”
“Similar considerations informed our recent decision invalidating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s mandate that ‘84 million Americans . . . either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense.’ National Federation of Independent Business v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2022). We found it ‘telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence,‘had never relied on its authority to regulate occupational hazards to impose such a remarkable measure.”
Justice Gorsuch summed it up nicely, stating, “That Congress has transferred such a power to any administrative body is not to be presumed or implied from any doubtful and uncertain language. The words and phrases efficacious to make such a delegation of power are well understood, and have been frequently used, and if Congress had intended to grant such a power to the [agency], it cannot be doubted that it would have used language open to no misconstruction, but clear and direct.”
The False Narrative That Will Doom This Planet If They Are Allowed To Continue This Decades-Long Con
For those who haven’t been paying attention, they’ve been recycling the same climate change con for well over 60 years, with an endless array of failed faux science predictions, using the word “catastrophe” to claim the lives of everyone and the very extinction of earth itself. From ice age to global warming, they cover it all, adding 10 years as they move forward with this con job, and people seem to buy it. The overpopulation myth has been ingrained into people’s minds for decades. Clippings from newspapers say it all, which can be found here, here, here, and here, among with countless others.
The EPA lists carbon dioxide as an “air pollutant” that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” by causing climate change. Read that twice. CO2 has never been listed as a toxic pollutant. Congress never voted to include CO2 as a “pollutant” for the EPA to regulate, nor have they removed it.
Imagine being one of the 700 scientists who dissented from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) and Al Gore’s man-made global warming claims, while 52 penned the disastrous narrative to convince the world everyone would die without drastic measures being taken. In 2009, just one year later, the EPA declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant, along with five other greenhouse gases, setting a path for the globalists to dominate the energy sector, force millions of dollars in compliance costs among businesses, and work its way right into farms, restaurants, small businesses, vehicles, and the American consumer. Lawsuits quickly ensued.
Despite hundreds of scientists, including current and former IPCC scientists who disputed that human activity was causing global warming – or that global warming even existed, and the 380,000 public comments, the Supreme Court ruled that these greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants, and the EPA began setting the standards for new light-duty vehicles. They were off to the race, working toward their ultimate goal – the smart control grid where everything and everyone is plugged in, surveilled, and controlled. Much like all of the other 3-letter agencies, the EPA began working around Congress and the constitution, with a display of authority they never had.
Bill Gates’ has a formula for getting to net zero carbon, by reducing the population. With a straight face, Gates informed an audience that CO2 is causing a temperature increase which creates negative effects on weather and ecosystems collapses. “There is certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad,” Bill gates said. Read that one twice.
In this formula, Gates explains that “one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.” Note that one category is “people.” He begins with population, stating that “the global population is at 6.8 billion people (this was recorded on TED in 2010) and heading up to about 9 billion, and if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10-15%.” The fact checkers will claim Gates never said this or didn’t mean it to sound like depopulation, but no matter how it’s spun, the fact is – he quite clearly stated that the population needed to be “lowered” by 10-15% and that the method of achieving this was through new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services. Watchthe full TED conference here.
Gates goes on to say that we need to create a new energy system using renewable energy that doesn’t produce CO2. Bottom line, these globalists want to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 to hinder all plant life in order to spare the world an alleged 1.5 degree increase in heat. This is almost as good as selling ice to an Eskimo.
Look Past The Con to See The Reality
What did everyone learn as far back as elementary school? Carbon dioxide (CO2) feeds trees and plants. Plants feed animals and human beings. Trees and plants also produce oxygen. Without plants all animals and human beings die. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is how this planet survives. The more CO2 produced, the more plant life prospers. Why do they want to wipe out the very thing people need to survive? Why are they trying to remove all traditional farming to indoor growing facilities that they control. While they argue that the natural cycle of life through CO2 will somehow cause damage to the ecosystem and have a negative effect on plant life, they are using gene-edited seeds to grow vegetables and fruit at these mega indoor facilities. This isn’t rocket science.
Plants grow faster and more abundant with more CO2. In fact, many become drought-resistant because the higher levels of CO2 allow plants use utilize water more efficiently. In Alex Epstein’s book ‘Fossil Future,’ he points out that as of 2021, CO2 levels were at 420 parts per million (ppm), or 0.042 percent of the atmosphere, and if plants reach 120 to 150 ppm CO2, most will die. Epstein says that today, levels are quite low from a plant-preference perspective and should be well into the thousands of parts per million. He states that it has been well-established that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is exactly what happens when burning fossil fuels, plants grow more.
Epstein shares several charts and studies in his book, with this one being quite significant. The argument made by the globalists is that CO2 is bad for the atmosphere, causes global warming by increasing temperatures, and will cause catastrophic effects with a 1.5 degree increase. Yet, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the only period in which there was a small correlation, CO2 rose after the temperature. Over the past one hundred seventy years there has been a minimal 1 degree greenhouse effect, while emissions have accelerated. Hence, there is no true warming effect.
According to the EPA, the total U.S. Emissions in 2020 = 5,981 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (excludes land sector).
Why not just plant hundreds of thousands of carbon dioxide-absorbing edible trees and plants across the country that will feed people and provide oxygen? Simple – that would take away the globalists’ ability to control the food through indoor vertical farms, while depleting farmland and plant life under the guise of “climate change.” If they were truly concerned for the climate, farms and food supply, this is a no-brainer.
Instead, Bill Gates is applauding the alleged removal of one trillion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by causing it to absorb into the oceans, while a faux scientist convinces people she is doing this to protect her children’s future, with a tear in her eye.
These globalists and faux scientists allege that human impact is the cause of so-called global warming and that people will die from a planet that will ultimately become extinct due to storms, droughts, and dangerous weather? It’s quite the opposite. Fossil fuels have provided an abundance of affordable energy sources for human beings to thrive, while all of these other “dangers” have actually improved. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are nowhere near where they need to be to create a safe environment for people to thrive. Sure, they may be great as a backup source, but if the country completely switched over and removed all fossil fuels – that would be the true end of this planet. Take a look at these charts in Epstein’s book that actually show the reduction in deaths from these events.
While all of these “dangerous” coal plants, oil, and natural gas have run the economy for decades, people’s life expectancy in the U.S. has consistently climbed, with the average up to 78.8 years of age.
The Battle Between States Fighting For or Against Climate Change Agendas
For dramatic effect, Speaker Pelosi exclaimed that the Supreme Court is letting our planet burn.
“In just two weeks, the court has acted to erase reproductive health freedom, flood our public places with more deadly weapons and, now, to let our planet burn,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Senators Chris Van Hollen, Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Elizabeth Warren want “climate polluters” to pay, with the introduction of ‘The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act,’ whereby they hope to garner $500 billion over the course of 10 years, by charging U.S.-based fossil fuel extractors, oil refiners, and foreign-owned companies doing business in the U.S. fees based on a percentage of their global emissions. Of course, the EPA and the Dept. of Treasury would establish and monitor this little gold mine that would then allegedly be used to finance other climate change efforts.
While Congress is at the helm on a national scale of creating new laws that produce new industries and impact Americans, so too are individual states, and it’s important to pay attention to what moves are being made, because they could very well continue to further this agenda on a state by state basis.
In a letter to Michael Regan, the Administrator of The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), signed by 30 Democrats on June 29, 2022, just before the decision by the Supreme Court, they insisted that the EPA carry out 11 actions immediately, all of which they claim to fall under the EPA’s authority. “We cannot let a partisan Supreme Court derail necessary efforts to reduce pollution and protect families,” CA Rep. Katie Porter said. “Our letter outlines executive actions we believe the Biden Administration should start considering immediately to take appropriate action in light of the Court’s decision.” “There’s still a sense of urgency, both due to the public health and climate change impacts, and to get the requested protections in place before the next presidential election,” CA Rep. Mike Levin said.
They are urging the EPA to require at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by 2030, but that could prove to be tricky business since they are pushing for an electric vehicle conversion. More on this in the next section. They are also insisting they include rules and regulations pertaining to particulate matter, ozone, coal ash, lead and copper, methane standards, greenhouse gas pollutants, and want them to regulate, “for the first time ever,” many additional industries such as cement, paper and pulp, and chemical manufacturers.
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice stated “people like to say ‘D.C. has too much power.’ They’re right. For too long, our federal bureaucracy has had almost unlimited, unchecked power over us with little accountability to the public. Agencies shouldn’t get to make unilateral decisions affecting all of our lives without Congress’s vote. That’s what this case really does, it gives power back to the people.” Of course, that’s only the case if Congress listens to the people.
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey vows to continue challenging Biden’s climate agenda, and has a big issuewith the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal requiring publicly traded companies to tally and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and other specifics. “That would also fall into the major questions category where the Biden administration is trying to transform all these agencies and turn them into an environmental regulator. Regardless of where you are on the issue of climate change, it’s important to play by the rules. Don’t try to use the agency process to short-circuit Congress’ role under the Constitution,” Morrisey said. Over 20 states have joined in a 42-page letter against the SEC.
According to a NYT article, Morrisey has also filed a case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking to limit the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from vehicles, and say that the arguments are similar to the case they just won.
Oregon: “This Supreme Court decision undermines 50 years of federal progress under the Clean Air Act,” Gov. Kate Brown said in a tweet following the ruling. “Oregon will continue to lead the way to address climate change at the state level, moving to 100% clean energy, capping emissions, and taking a comprehensive approach to climate change.” And it seems she is doing so without the legislatures vote because there have been challenges filed by businesses, arguing that the governor cannot empower the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to regulate greenhouse gases. That said, they did pass a bill agreeing to Oregon utilities being 100% carbon-free by 2040.
California has been leading the way in trying to set the national standards when it comes to regulating carbon emissions from automotive tailpipes because manufacturers can’t produce one line of vehicles for California and another for the other states. Not surprisingly, the EPA has signed off on California’s rule making numerous times, and while Presidents Bush and Trump have rejected their request, Obama had restored them. During Trump’s presidency, Ford, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, and Volvo decided to side with Gov. Newsom, and are now rushing to his defense after 17 Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration for trying to reverse Trump’s decision. It’s no wonder these automobile companies show loyalty toward Newsom. Ford Motor Co. received billions of federal funding, tax breaks, and loans to produce electric vehicles and battery technology, and for clean energy tax credits. Ford is currently in the process of investing $3.7 billion to increase their electric vehicle production in three states.
Gov. Newsom also issued an executive order to ban the sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 in California – a state with a population of over 39 million people.
Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso, who’s the ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee said that “the Court’s decision confirms Congress, not the EPA, has the authority to create environmental policy. We’ll continue working to protect the environment while making American energy as clean, reliable and affordable as possible.”
Pay close attention to what mayors are up to. Bloomberg Cities Network and C40 have been working with mayors for years to implement strategies on local levels. It’s important people do their due diligence in their local areas to see what they are up to. In fact, C40 is already on the ball. The day of the ruling against the EPA, C40 announced how global mayors will tackle the climate crisis at C40 World Mayors Summit. C40 consists of almost 100 mayors of big cities across the world, with 14 major cities in the US.
Gas Prices at All-Time High and Biden Drains US Oil from Strategic Reserves Instead of Producing it, While Exporting 5 Million Barrels to China, India and Europe
This injection of oil to allegedly offset gas prices while dangerously draining the US strategic reserves, to the tune of 1 million barrels per day for six months (180 million barrels), has not decreased gas prices, but instead prices continue to climb. On top of that, 5 millions barrels were exported to Europe and Asia. Reuters also traced some of the cargo to the Netherlands, India, and China. What’s worse, is Biden’s son Hunter had a stakein the Chinese energy company, as recently as 2015, that received one million barrels.
Just two days after this news exploded, the Biden administration released their new environmental analysis for ConocoPhillips’ Willow oil project in Alaska. It took them a full year to provide a new analysis that was ordered by Alaska District Court Judge Sharon Gleason. How’s that for timing? Their new analysis included several options, including removing two of the five drilling sites, and not building it at all. BLM said it will accept public comments for 45 days before making it’s decision later this year. This project could produce 600 million barrels of oil if it ever comes to light. If the climate activists and globalists have their way, they will continue to do everything they can to remove the use of fossil fuels and stop any project from moving forward.
In 2021, the US imported 8.47 million barrels per day of petroleum from 73 countries, and exported 8.63 million barrels per day to 176 countries. Crude oil imports accounted for 72%, while exports accounted for 35%. Biden continues to blame Russia for the US spike in gas prices, when they only account for 8% of imports.
On a separate note, the EU parliament just ruled that gas and nuclear investments will now be labeled as “green.”
Look To The Netherlands for Proof of The Plan – Food Control
In the Netherlands, thousands of farmers are out in tractors and trucks protesting and fighting back against the Parliamentary regulations over nitrogen that could cause 30-50% of local farmers to shut down. Under the guise of other “protected vegetation” they are trying to control levels of nitrogen oxide through their climate change agenda.
Roman Balmakov of Facts Matter sat down with Member of Parliament Thierry Baudet who is fighting back against these regulations. Baudet explains how they are following the script written by the EU to realize the “Great Reset” so as to weaken Dutch sovereignty and autonomy, continue mass immigration, take the land from the farmers and put houses there, turn the Netherlands into a giant city, without its own means of food production and to make people dependent on the international rulers.
The Netherlands is one of the top food exporters in the world, and they want to shut that down. Baudet explains that in the 1990s the EU introduced Natura 2000 guidelines, which selected areas in Europe were picked for preservation of certain forms of vegetation, and the Netherlands was picked to protect moss, clover, and hay. “More nitrogen oxide in the Netherlands would not be a problem for nature, it would be a problem for maintaining the specific vegetation goals that were set in Natura 2000 guidelines,” Baudet said. The politicians are unwilling to address the EU, stating that they will no longer uphold those guidelines. Instead, during a time of food shortages and supply chain issues, they seem to be on the side of throwing their farmers under the bus to keep in line with the globalists’ goals.
“They say they want to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, but if you bring in 100,000 people a year net, then your nitrogen oxide emissions are going to increase anyway, so nobody’s making these larger analysis of what’s going to happen to the economy in the long run,” Baudet said.
Baudet says that there is one possibility. If the farmers set up a general strike where they won’t deliver any meat, fish, milk, and cheeses anymore, within a few days that will be seen in the supermarket and people will become hungry and see what’s happening. They need to really form a coalition and stick to it, but he’s afraid there may be more aggressive demonstrations instead and public opinion will turn against them and then the government will give the farmers more money to buy their farms.
Baudet warns the world: “We are in this fight together. We saw it during the Covid scam for two years. We’ve seen it with mass migration everywhere. We are now being disowned from own creation and production of our own food and production of our lands. Across the board, a radical agenda is being pushed, which is called the ‘Sustainable Development Goals‘, which scientifically is bonkers. There is no CO2 problem but they are creating this madness about it. Ultimately you’re going to see a very small group of people who own almost everything, will be richer and richer and more and more in control of our lives, and we will be weaker and more lonely, poorer without democracy, without proper ways to express ourselves, and censorship. If you zoom out you see this trend toward bureaucratic dictatorship being imposed on all of us and only if we unite and surpass all of these differences that have divided us for years, and we fight this together and succeed – and we must do it. It’s the single most existential fight in the history of civilization. They want to be ready in 2030. The globalist takeover. We have 8 years to fight this – let’s do it together.“
While this is taking place in the Netherlands, protestors in Sri Lanka over food and fuel shortages, just breached the President’s home. The Sri Lankan President had to flee, and reports are now saying that the President and prime minister are resigning. The crushing of economies and takeover of food systems is the goal. Corey’s Digs reported on the new indoor vertical farming systems the globalists are erecting across the world in order to control the food, back in April 2022. It is a must read to understand the bigger picture, how they are using climate change to push this agenda, and how it all ties together. Their 17 Sustainable Development Goals, are really 17 Goals Toward Enslavement.