Great Pyramid's Pink Orb

Cross posting:

Hi Dex,

One of my drinking buddies during my last binge some years ago was a
US Ranger. A good man, one who makes one proud of the US military. I
had just read on the net about Ft Hood apparently being used as a
spot to build into and add more underground tunnels/bases, and asked
him about it, and what he was going to be doing. He indirectly
confirmed it was true, and his answer to the 2nd question was that
he'd be up on the surface 'trying to protect you guys' as he put it.

In light of this, maybe a 'Yes!' to lift-off might be in order.

As to the underground bases, and the camps: 'The best laid plans of
mice and men [and reptilians] oft go astray...'

I have had similar experiences to what your friend describes. not
fun. especially as there is as much brainwashing about this as re the
ET presence, and people automatically [programmed] think 'paranoid'
or 'hallucination' or just plain old 'crazy' if you try to talk about
this.

Peace, wynderer

Uncle John here: I thought about a rebuttal about dan's latest post about stargates. His testimony has changed so many times.

Remember (it's all on video) about the wormholes at Frenchman's.

But the real convincing argument about dan's lack of veracity is this: What happened to the Yellowbook? Why has that been dropped from discussion?

The real truth is that the ET's can make all these technologies work they way they want. Just like the supposed cherubim.

The ET's lead the majestic around by the nose.

We are being had and dan is the front man!

Why Obama?



In less than an hour, the citizens of New Hampshire will be handing a resounding victory to one Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, and a corresponding defeat to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. What happened in such a short time to have changed the perception of Hillary as the inevitable winner of the Democratic nomination? Or better yet, what caused the 'wave' that all the talking heads and pundits are still gabbing about, and will be gabbing about as Obama rolls up state after state?

The answer is simple, but not as simple as the mere word 'change' would suggest. Obviously, in the wake of the Iowa political earthquake, everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon, touting "Change!" as their mantra, but by then it was too late. In fact, that mid-stream switch --- so obvious to onlookers --- may have sealed the fate of the Establishment candidates, who will continue to see their support melt away. Even my own favorite horse in the race, John Edwards, (who should have benefitted from the frustration in the public considering he's the best "fighter" candidate the Democratics have fielded since before Dean imploded in that infamous scream 4 years ago), is now witnessing the Obama 'wave' from the same sidelines as the rest of us. So even as the entire debate has taken on a completely different look with the 'change' theme, what sets Obama apart and why?

The first is the most obvious, so I'll dispense with that directly. As one woman in New Hampshire put it, when asked by a reporter why Hillary had lost her support and Obama gained it, "Hillary has been in politics for over 35 years, so you know she has a lot of favors to repay, and we don't know what they may be. Obama, on the other hand, is new. He even looks new. He's not one of the same old faces out of Washington." Exactly. Half Kenyan, half American, he's actually a genuine African-American and not just because of his skin tone. His skin tone DOES make him look 'different', not just the "same old faces". Let's face it! And what's exciting is that, for the first time, he's not the "black" candidate --- as predecessors Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were. His personality communicates beyond any self-consciousness of race, and seeing the response he's getting from 'white america', the very unmentioning of it brings home the fact that we will have done what many think is still beyond our reach, namely reach racial harmony.

But even beyond the most obvious is the 'code' he speaks; Obama speaks of "WE". It's INCLUSIVE! NOT this "I" and "you", even though I know it would be somewhat disingenuous not to recognize that there's only one "president". Still, when Obama says "we" you get the feeling he isn't referring to his "advisers", which is the sense one gets from the Establishment candidates. (John Edwards can say "we are in this together" and one can feel the sincerity of his convictions - they're certainly genuine. They may be too combative though for the 'independents' that will decide the fate of the nation. Therefore
not as fluent in this new code of idealism, though why they didn't use that terminology before escapes me.)

Independently, another candidate was ALSO discovering this new 'code'. Republican Mike Huckabee is yet ANOTHER man from Hope, Arkansas. (What is it about towns called 'Hope'? While outrunning 7 police forces in that infamous high-speed chase I was responsible for in 1980, it was when we saw a sign for the little town of Hope, New Jersey that we turned and lost them.) The Huckster (aside from having the same organizational bloodties as virtually all the candidates, even I suspect Obama) also refers to a 'we', allowing him to tie into the dissaffection of those angry at Bush for Iraq and a sour economy. He goes further in his analogy to wishing to be perceived as the "guy you work next to, not the guy that laid you off". He tapped into the sentiment of "we're in this thing together", which is great for the body politic, but doesn't auger well for those that have been shall we say 'hiding' things.

Now that Obama is seen as 'electable', and in fact more so than Hillary, it allows all those party hacks to loosen their grip on the constituents, who have basically given the middle finger to the Establishment. Even if Ziggy Brzezinski, his son and another black female surnamed "Rice" are 'advising' Obama, 'we' get the feeling he's not going to compromise on principle. He's the "Negotiator" who, we hope, will move inexorably to enact the changes required while using negotiation to do it when necessary, but he/we want the job done. Even if we have to work with Republicans as equals to do it, we'll embrace it if it works.
Hillary, on the other hand, is the "Compromiser". Having learned the art of compromise in her brutal defeat in the 1994 health-care reform debate, she's become quite solicitous of their support and has been succussful in getting all the party hacks to back her. Edwards on the third hand is the "Determinator". He'll determine who the obstacles are and terminate them. Simple as that. A fighter par excellance, but nonetheless not necessarily representing the 'other side', the one that produced the horror we're now enduring. It's because of that that Obama is exciting even Republican voters. He doesn't blame them.

Okay, news break. The first results from New Hampshire are in, from the little town of Dixville Notch, as they were ranked on the whiteboard:
{Note: The registered Democrats doubled 100% recently there, as a second Democrat moved into town. Meaning, the majority of all voters are independent and can vote as either Republican or Democrat.}

----------------------------------
Guiliani: 1
Huckabee: 0
McCain: 4
Romney: 2

-----------------------------------

Clinton: 0
Edwards: 2
Obama: 7
Richardson: 1
-----------------------------------

As I was saying, about this coming Obama 'wave'.....many will find themselves slack-jawed, using run-on periods to express a thought trailing off.....but the next thing is, they'll be on the bandwagon too. My concern is whether he'll be able to do in private what he claims publicly he'll do. Will he be able to keep Ziggy at arm's length, even as he listens to that advice? Will he avoid the reflexive action away from the imperial use of power, so much that the world senses he's simply using American military power to defend the interests of the 'Federal' Reserve and the rest of the elites? Will he be misled into a false reading of the 'warning' ET came to tell us? Will the 'new group' sink its claws into his backside so deep he's no better than previous puppets? Will he even have the time to ease any of those concerns? We may never know, but there's certainly something happening on the political landscape that's exciting. Maybe it's the Muslim middle-name; almost like the American people understand we can't repudiate the last 7 years out-right but his successor's very name can do so in mute witness and in spades.

I'm still planning on voting for Edwards, even though he went to a Bilderberg meeting and endeared himself to enough players there to get an approving nod. I still think he's more than sincere and has the "fire in the belly" as a fighter, but I still marvel and support the 'wave'. It's brought in a lot of new voters already and if there is a head-to-head matchup between Huckabee and Obama - which I think will be the final competition - the nation should finally have a REAL discussion about what's coming. Though neither I suspect is aware of the poleshift, I think both will have the credibility to say "I knew NOTHING!" and be believed. And in the final analysis, that's what I think will be one of the most important factors in the human reaction to what's pending.