Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin “women in space,” is a farce! Here, Paul Joseph Watson, a big critic of government and media lies, has a good video on this. Though he is not a flat earther, to my knowledge, what he points out and what the video shows is, that the girls were playing around. If they really went to space, their faces would have been glued to the windows. This video is really a laugh!
With a space flight like this, it’s making more people question the whole thing. It’s just a matter of time before they think of a flat, stationary earth. So, keep on faking it Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and NASA!
JD Vance’s Greenland Visit: A Power Play in Disguise
by Craig Dee
Vice President JD Vance’s recent trip to Greenland, accompanied by his family, was an unwelcome and unnecessary display of U.S. dominance. Neither the government of Greenland nor Denmark extended an invitation—his only reception came from soldiers stationed at the U.S. military base, who had no choice in the matter.
The media coverage centered on his speech at the base (see video below), where Vance repeatedly invoked terms like “military security” and “national security” at least half a dozen times. But where exactly is the threat? This rhetoric reeks of paranoia rather than peacekeeping. Imagine if Russia made the same argument. What if Russia expressed interest in purchasing Greenland or establishing a military base there, just as the U.S. already has? Americans would be outraged. In fact, if any other country attempted such a move, the U.S. would likely frame it as a global takeover attempt.
The Myth of an “Unsafe” Arctic
Vance’s assertion that the U.S. must make the Arctic “safe” is baseless. Greenland has always been safe. The real danger isn’t an external threat but the possibility of U.S. militarization turning Greenland into a target. If missiles were stationed there, it would immediately become a high-risk zone—Greenlanders understand this. In the event of a U.S.-Russia conflict, Greenland’s military base would inevitably become a strategic bombing target.
Adding insult to injury, Vance had the audacity to claim that “Denmark is not doing a very good job.” For a high-ranking U.S. official to criticize the governance of a close ally is both undiplomatic and misleading. The reality is that Denmark has successfully kept Greenland out of international conflicts. The region remains stable, its people employed, and its resources managed without external interference.
The Real Agenda: Resource Exploitation
Beyond military posturing, Vance’s visit also revived the Trump Administration’s ambitions to exploit Greenland’s mineral wealth. He and Trump have stated their intent to develop the island’s resources—but that decision belongs to the people of Greenland and Denmark, not Washington.
If valuable minerals were readily available, Denmark or other nations would have already begun extraction. Historically, U.S. corporations have struck deals with foreign governments for resource development without attempting to annex their land. Why, then, hasn’t the U.S. simply proposed a mining partnership with Greenland instead of pushing for control?
One common argument is that “Greenland or Denmark doesn’t have the money to develop the minerals.” But history proves otherwise. If valuable resources exist, foreign companies would readily invest, securing a share of the profits rather than outright ownership of the land. This has been the standard approach in global resource extraction for centuries. So why does the U.S. insist on taking a different approach with Greenland?
A Thinly Veiled Power Grab
Vance’s visit was nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to expand U.S. control—militarily and economically. Greenland doesn’t need American intervention to be safe or prosperous. The real question is: why does the U.S. believe it has the right to dictate Greenland’s future?
Greenland, Canada, and the Antarctic: America’s Misguided Obsession with Expansion
This is a fictional story, but one rooted in reality. Remember the old American sitcom The Beverly Hillbillies? Jed Clampett struck oil on his land, partnered with an oil company, became a millionaire, and moved to Beverly Hills. That’s how landowners without resources develop their land—they don’t sell it outright but work with companies already in the industry.
So why is the U.S. dangling the idea of buying Greenland if all they truly want is access to its minerals?
Why Greenland? Why Not Canada?
If the U.S. is genuinely interested in mineral resources, why focus on Greenland? Canada, Greenland’s massive neighbor to the west, has plenty of land rich in natural resources. Take a look at a map—Canada’s northern territories are filled with large, mineral-rich islands. If mining is the goal, why not strike a deal with Canada instead? Canadian corporations already develop their own resources, and if private landowners control certain areas, mining companies can negotiate directly with them. If the government owns the land, those same companies could negotiate extraction rights.
So why isn’t the U.S. pushing for Canadian resources in the same way? The answer is simple: this isn’t just about minerals—it’s about control.
What About Antarctica?
If the U.S. is in such desperate need of rare-earth minerals and oil, why not turn to Antarctica? In fact, mining there would be easier for several reasons:
No single country has claimed Antarctica.
The U.S. (and several other nations) already have a presence there.
Antarctica’s landmass is far larger than Greenland.
Admiral Richard Byrd once publicly stated that Antarctica holds vast amounts of untapped minerals and oil.
Unlike Greenland, pursuing mineral extraction in Antarctica wouldn’t provoke geopolitical tensions.
There is, of course, the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which prohibits mineral development. However, treaties can be renegotiated. If multiple nations agreed to open Antarctica to controlled resource extraction, it could provide economic benefits without stepping on the toes of sovereign nations like Greenland and Denmark.
Yet, the U.S. government isn’t pushing for that. Why? Again, the issue isn’t minerals—it’s strategic dominance.
Is There Really a Shortage?
If rare-earth minerals and oil were truly running out, why haven’t nations aggressively pursued untapped resources in Canada, Greenland, or Antarctica? The answer is simple: supply and demand.
Oil-rich nations in the Middle East, for example, know exactly how much oil they have. Yet they don’t extract it all at once—they drill only as needed to maintain stable prices. The same principle applies to minerals. Governments and corporations are well aware of their resource reserves, but many sites remain undeveloped simply because demand is being met elsewhere.
Will the U.S. Develop Greenland’s Minerals?
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Greenland does have vast mineral reserves. If the U.S. were to gain control over Greenland, would it actually develop those resources? The answer is likely no, for two primary reasons:
As mentioned earlier, the U.S. already has access to enough minerals to meet its needs.
Extracting minerals from Greenland would be extraordinarily expensive and logistically challenging.
Mining in remote, frozen landscapes comes with significant obstacles. Everything—equipment, fuel, food, and personnel—would have to be flown in. Heavy machinery would need to be designed to withstand extreme cold. Airfields would need to be built, and helicopters would have to transport workers to remote mountain sites. Workers would demand high salaries, as they do in Alaska’s oil fields.
These challenges would make mining in Greenland financially impractical. Instead, the idea of mineral development is likely just a pretext—a convenient excuse to justify U.S. expansion into Greenland under the guise of economic opportunity.
The Security Argument: Another Convenient Excuse
The U.S. already has a military base in Greenland. If security were truly the concern, why would the U.S. need to own the country? The reality is that America has over 800 military bases around the world—one in Greenland is more than enough to maintain security.
But Vance’s rhetoric, along with Trump’s past comments about Greenland, signals something far more troubling: an attempt to militarize the Arctic under the pretense of national security. This aggressive posture sends a clear and hostile message to Russia.
If Russia suddenly expressed interest in acquiring territory near the U.S., Washington would undoubtedly interpret it as a provocation. But when the U.S. does the same thing, it’s framed as a strategic necessity. The hypocrisy is obvious.
A Manufactured Crisis?
If the U.S. truly wanted peace with Russia, it wouldn’t be posturing over Greenland or expanding its military presence near Russian borders. It wouldn’t be fueling tensions in Ukraine. Instead, it would be engaging in genuine diplomacy.
But rather than working toward stability, U.S. leaders seem intent on manufacturing a crisis—whether to justify military expansion, consolidate economic control, or use Greenland as a bargaining chip in future negotiations with Russia.
The Real Motivation: Greed and Global Dominance
At the end of the day, the push for Greenland isn’t about resources. It’s about control. It’s about expanding U.S. influence under the illusion of economic development and security.
Vance’s visit, Trump’s past statements, and the broader U.S. strategy in the Arctic all point to the same conclusion: this isn’t about helping Greenlanders or addressing a mineral shortage. It’s about power.
And as history has shown, nations that overextend themselves in pursuit of global dominance eventually face consequences. As the saying goes, pride comes before the fall, as we read in the book of Revelation.
The Controlled Demolition of The U.S. Is Fully Underway
by Gary D. Barnett
Under Trump in his first term was insane, and in 2020 alone, government spending was nearly $7 trillion, and the deficit was well over $3 trillion; no curbing of inflation evident. How do you bring down inflation with spending like this? You can’t!
With all the debate surrounding the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump and their potential consequences for American consumers, it’s worth considering a better alternative. Instead of relying on tariffs, the government should focus on creating an environment where American businesses can thrive and compete without artificial barriers.
To make domestically produced goods more affordable, the government must take the following steps:
Reduce or eliminate excessive taxation on businesses to lower costs and encourage production.
Cut bureaucratic red tape that hinders efficiency and innovation.
Streamline environmental regulations, keeping only those that are necessary to protect public health and safety while eliminating excessive restrictions.
End the debt-based monetary system, which artificially inflates costs and weakens purchasing power.
Many companies have shut down or moved overseas because of these burdens. Rather than using tariffs to force companies to manufacture domestically, we should allow them to import freely and let consumers decide what they want. If people prefer domestically made goods, businesses will naturally adjust to meet demand.
Right now, many Americans buy cheaper imported products simply because they cannot afford higher-priced domestic alternatives. This affordability crisis stems from excessive taxation, inflation caused by reckless government spending, and personal debt burdens. Imposing tariffs will only make things worse, further raising costs for those already struggling.
Tariffs do not solve the root issues; they only mask the symptoms of an unhealthy economic system. If we address the real causes—government overreach, excessive taxation, and a broken monetary system—market forces will naturally correct themselves.
Additionally, using tariffs to “punish” trading partners only creates hostility between nations. Trade imbalances exist due to supply and demand, not unfair practices. Penalizing a free market goes against economic logic and fosters unnecessary tensions.
Ultimately, the path to real economic prosperity lies in returning to principles of economic freedom and responsible governance. As a Christian, I believe that aligning our nation with God’s laws will bring true prosperity. If we embrace these principles, there will be no need for tariffs, and we will witness a new era of economic strength and stability—the true Golden Age.
What about free speech you talked about Donald Trump?
When America was really great it was not a crime to talk against a race or religion. The Bible said a lot of things that offends people today but that’s just too bad. Another indication that the enemy is getting scared. The antichrist Soviet Union was the first country to make “antisemitism” illegal. I wonder why? Find out more here.
Closing down the Department of Education. I agree with Trump on this. It’s was the biggest waste of government money. It goes to show that there are thousands of thieves in America. It is estimated that over the years the tax-payer money they got amount to over 2 Trillion dollars. I didn’t know it cost so much to make our children dumb. Check it out.
Each audio below is about 1 hour long. Below the links is how Adolf Hitler dealt with debt/usury. Many people believe that this is the real reason for World War 2.
“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars;
the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
L. Mencken
“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars…”
The Appeal of Bold Deception:
This suggests that Americans, perhaps subconsciously, are drawn to charismatic figures who project confidence, even if that confidence is built on falsehoods.
These “daring liars” often present simplified, appealing narratives that resonate with people’s desires or fears. They paint vivid pictures of success, security, or a return to a perceived “golden age.”
This can be seen in various contexts, from politics and business to entertainment and social media.
The “daring” aspect implies a certain audacity that can be seen as impressive, even if morally questionable. It suggests a willingness to break rules and challenge norms.
The Power of Narrative:
People are often more swayed by compelling stories than by dry facts.
A skilled liar can craft a narrative that aligns with people’s existing beliefs and prejudices, making it easier to accept.
The Desire for Simple Solutions:
Every problem often called complex or controversial. Liars often offer complex solutions and scapegoats, which can be appealing to those seeking certainty in uncertain times.
“…the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
The Uncomfortable Truth:
Truth can be inconvenient, challenging, and even painful. It can force people to confront uncomfortable realities about themselves, their society, or their beliefs.
Those who speak the truth often disrupt established narratives and power structures, which can generate resentment and hostility.
The Messenger is Attacked:
Instead of addressing the truth itself, people often attack the messenger. This is a common tactic used to discredit and silence those who challenge the status quo.
This can involve personal attacks, character assassination, or accusations of bias.
Cognitive Dissonance:
When confronted with information that contradicts their existing beliefs, people may experience cognitive dissonance, a state of psychological discomfort.
To reduce this discomfort, they may reject the truth and cling to their existing beliefs, even if they are based on falsehoods.
The loss of trust in institutions:
In modern times, the loss of trust in the media, and in governmental institutions has caused people to be even more weary of those that present the truth. This is the first stage of waking up.
Overall Interpretation:
Mencken’s quote suggests a deep-seated distrust of authority and a preference for comforting illusions over harsh realities. It highlights the power of charisma and narrative in shaping public opinion, and the challenges faced by those who dare to speak truth to power.
It’s a stark reminder that:
Critical thinking and media literacy are essential.
We must be wary of those who offer say the problem is complex, when, in reality the solution is simple. Just look at the many examples found in the Holy Bible.
We should value those who have the courage to speak the truth, even when it is unpopular.
We’ve all heard about President Donald Trump imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. With other nations, there will be reciprocal tariffs. Is this good or bad? If you listen to Trump, you might think it’s good. Sure, Donald Trump has done many good things, but is this one of them? Let’s take a closer look at tariffs and why they are in place.
Tariffs are implemented because either the imported goods undersell what America produces, or the exporting country is not importing an equal amount from the U.S. In other words, there is no balance of trade.
For example, Canada is not buying American cars, among other things. So, Trump has imposed a 25% tariff on them.
We are told that this puts Americans out of jobs and hurts our businesses. But why is this? It’s because goods are cheaper in another country, so many lower-income people have no choice but to buy what is cheaper. Tariffs on imported goods would hurt the poor. If they don’t have the money, they will either have to borrow it or do without. Both cases make it worse for Americans. They would either have to borrow money from the bank, which will make them worse off as they would have to pay interest, or do without other products.
The more people get into debt, the less they can buy—regardless of price and where the product is made. If they can’t pay, they might have to go bankrupt and perhaps lose what collateral they do have.
It comes down to this:
– People will either have to do without because they don’t have enough money.
– They have to pay more because of the tariffs.
– There are no products to buy, and some companies might expand their markets to other countries.
Think of the tariff situation like this:
You have a department store in town called Poland Store and another called America Store. They both have wholesale and retail sections. You have your goods and prices, and America has its store with its wholesale products and prices. You trade between each other. Each department store decides what they want to buy and how much; they know their customers’ needs and buy accordingly.
You might decide to buy less from America Store, and that should be your right. America Store might decide to buy more from Poland Store for their own reasons. In short, why should the government tell other stores what to buy, how much, and at what price? This is called freedom, and some leaders don’t understand that! When countries act like this, it causes hatred and animosity in the world.
We must go back to why America hasn’t produced some of the goods that Trump is complaining about. It seems like he is in the “blame game,” always blaming the other guy. Well, this started way before Trump became president, even in his first term of office. It happened over the years with companies seeing that it’s cheaper to hire and produce their products in other countries. In addition to the cost of labor in America, U.S. companies had more red tape to contend with, such as environmental laws and taxes. They had no choice but to move. After all, you are in business to make money, not lose money.
My suggestion is, instead of blaming others, make the environment in your country business-friendly, such as: fewer taxes, fewer regulations. I’m not suggesting that we lower our wages to meet that of the poorest nation in the world. We should keep our standards high. But we should look into why we have high wages in the first place.
First, they really aren’t that high considering the cost of living. But the answer is not, “Let’s raise wages; let’s raise taxes so we can give out more money to invaders and for all kinds of social benefits.” All this leads to higher and higher prices, and no one is ever satisfied. What we have to do is go back to biblical economics. But that would be another topic that would require a very long article to explain.
In short, we must do things the right way, the way that God wants us to do it—not how man does it! Man’s laws have been a complete failure, and imposing tariffs is not the answer.
When we do it God’s way, there will be no need for tariffs. Tariffs are nothing but a plaster on the sore without getting to the root cause of the problem. When we get to the root cause of the problems, our problems will go away, and everyone would be prosperous, healthy, happy, and safe.
Have you ever noticed how the ISS seems to be playing an intergalactic game of Tetris with itself? One day it looks like a high-tech floating fortress, and the next, it’s got solar panels in different places like it’s trying on a new outfit. Are these panels really getting swapped out that often? Is there a secret Black Friday sale on space-grade solar panels that we don’t know about? And with space debris zooming around at 5 miles per second (seriously, that’s faster than most people run for free pizza), why even bother putting fragile panels up there?
No, my friends, this is all CGI wizardry! The ever-changing ISS is just a grand experiment to see how gullible we all are.
Speaking of space oddities, did you hear about those astronauts who’ve been stuck up there since last June? That’s right—just casually chilling in the void of space for months, yet looking as fresh and well-fed as contestants on a cooking show. Are we really supposed to believe they’ve got enough snacks and water squirreled away for that long? Space is tight, people! They don’t exactly have a Costco up there.
And let’s talk about the inside of the ISS—aka the ultimate DIY electrical hazard. Have you seen those pictures? It’s just a jungle of exposed wires! Who designed this thing, a toddler with a roll of duct tape? One wrong move, and an astronaut could unplug life support while reaching for a floating M&M. And are we seriously supposed to believe they can fix any random mechanical failure that happens? Do they have a stash of spare parts just floating around like lost socks in a dryer?
Honestly, years ago, I thought: “Why doesn’t NASA at least try to make the ISS look as sleek as a Hollywood sci-fi set?” And now, I think I have my answer—maybe they want to see just how much nonsense we’re willing to believe.
Christian Flat Earth Ministry 
Truth or Charisma: What Do We Value Most?
The Paradox of Truth and Deception
“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars;
the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars…”
The Appeal of Bold Deception:
This suggests that Americans, perhaps subconsciously, are drawn to charismatic figures who project confidence, even if that confidence is built on falsehoods.
These “daring liars” often present simplified, appealing narratives that resonate with people’s desires or fears. They paint vivid pictures of success, security, or a return to a perceived “golden age.”
This can be seen in various contexts, from politics and business to entertainment and social media.
The “daring” aspect implies a certain audacity that can be seen as impressive, even if morally questionable. It suggests a willingness to break rules and challenge norms.
The Power of Narrative:
People are often more swayed by compelling stories than by dry facts.
A skilled liar can craft a narrative that aligns with people’s existing beliefs and prejudices, making it easier to accept.
The Desire for Simple Solutions:
Every problem often called complex or controversial. Liars often offer complex solutions and scapegoats, which can be appealing to those seeking certainty in uncertain times.
“…the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”
The Uncomfortable Truth:
Truth can be inconvenient, challenging, and even painful. It can force people to confront uncomfortable realities about themselves, their society, or their beliefs.
Those who speak the truth often disrupt established narratives and power structures, which can generate resentment and hostility.
The Messenger is Attacked:
Instead of addressing the truth itself, people often attack the messenger. This is a common tactic used to discredit and silence those who challenge the status quo.
This can involve personal attacks, character assassination, or accusations of bias.
Cognitive Dissonance:
When confronted with information that contradicts their existing beliefs, people may experience cognitive dissonance, a state of psychological discomfort.
To reduce this discomfort, they may reject the truth and cling to their existing beliefs, even if they are based on falsehoods.
The loss of trust in institutions:
In modern times, the loss of trust in the media, and in governmental institutions has caused people to be even more weary of those that present the truth. This is the first stage of waking up.
Overall Interpretation:
Mencken’s quote suggests a deep-seated distrust of authority and a preference for comforting illusions over harsh realities. It highlights the power of charisma and narrative in shaping public opinion, and the challenges faced by those who dare to speak truth to power.
It’s a stark reminder that:
Critical thinking and media literacy are essential.
We must be wary of those who offer say the problem is complex, when, in reality the solution is simple. Just look at the many examples found in the Holy Bible.
We should value those who have the courage to speak the truth, even when it is unpopular.