Stealth Take-Down of America

DTNorthern California-based environmental activist and Rense Radio Network host Deborah Tavares is a guest on this week’s Real Politik. She explains impending threats to US citizens’ human and property rights via the ongoing aggressive United Nations’ Agenda 21 program being stealthily enacted in towns and counties throughout the United States.

In addition to providing a wealth of info and educational sources, Deborah presents strategies for raising awareness at the local level and contesting the onslaught of such programs.

Deborah Tavares has appeared on a variety of US and international alternative media outlets. A wealth of additional information is available at her website,


Interview Highlights

“It’s important to understand how government really works,” Tavares points out, “and we were not really taught how government really works. Nor were we taught about the Climate Action Plans, nor has anyone really broken that down. That’s why I refer to you “Who Is Running America and the Climate Action Plans.” There are many documents we refer to in that YouTube you can watch, and you can download the documents.”

But when we look at that and we look at your city, here’s what you can do and I recommend you do. Type in the name of your city in your search bar, followed by ‘policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’ You will find the policies in your town. This is an Executive Order. Our government runs through the Oval Office via Executive Orders. We can stop scratching our heads and asking the same question over and over again, “How can they continue to create these Executive Orders that are absolutely redefining what everyone things America is?”

According to Tavares, the US is experiencing a stealth takeover that is largely being waged on a local level and predicated on phony science. “There are policies that are reshaping a new market in the United States. A new market has been organized. It’s called the New Green Economy. The Green Economy is based upon the falsified science that we must reduce our CO2 emissions or our greenhouse gas. Of course, we know that that’s fraudulent. Just as we know that the illusion of petroleum being a fossil fuel and being a finite fuel is also falsified science. We know that Rockefeller created the illusion of constrained oil reserves and petroleum reserves so that they could keep the price up and charge us and control us.

“So, an excellent YouTube to watch is called The Origin of Oil’ by Colonel Fletcher Prouty. Just as oil is referred to in all of the documents that our children are learning in school, and in all of the documents coming out of your cities based on false science, they refer to fossil fuels, and our need to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Again, petroleum does not come from fossils. Petroleum is a renewable energy resource that is consistently created within the mantle of the earth. Our petroleum never came from dead dinosaurs. Again, all part of the false science and the reinventing of a reality. This is a war on reality that we’re all in.”

Sheeple 19Tavares continues to explain how plans are now being uniformly developed by local governments across the US reduce water consumption and allegedly shrink individual “carbon footprints.”

“It’s most, most important for everyone to understand the same playbook of scarcity is now being created out of water. And this is a major, major opportunity for you to spread some good news … The reality that we have primary water is why we do not have a water shortage. We can no longer allow the media psy-ops campaign to frighten us about scarcity of water. We have to understand that the earth is the water planet and continuously produces water from within the mantle. In fact, water, as oil and petroleum, is a renewable. We have an abundance of water. So you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would the corporate government agencies create the false science of water scarcity and the fear that we’re running out of water?’ Of course, the goal is global control, monetary increase of resources for the controllers, and creating a compliance to water monitoring, required reduced water use, and charging us a much higher cost, all based on our ignorance of where water really comes from.”

Many farmers throughout California’s breadbasket, the San Joaquin valley, because of a broad propaganda campaign on the alleged scientific basis of water scarcity, are forfeiting their land and ranches. “We see large signs along the highway that say, ‘No Water, No Jobs, No Food.’ The San Joaquin valley in California has been producing major food resources for the entire country and it is being massively hit right now because many of the ranchers and farmers believe that they must reduce their food production because they believe that there is a water scarcity.” Tavares argues that the recent California drought is “an engineered drought.”

It’s a part of the geoengineering program, which is the deliberate large scale manipulation of the earth’s climate. So for any of you that have questions about that being a reality, I urge you to go to our other website, called, and take a look at “Controlling the Weather by 2025,” by the US Air Force. Well, I can that they are ahead of schedule.

So primary water, again, it’s in abundance, and must start looking down for water instead of up. We’ve been taught that our water comes from rain and snow melt. It doesn’t. All water that is visible on the face of the planet begins with primary water that comes up from within the mantle of the earth. This explains where springs come from, where geysers come from. This is also why they were able to populate Israel, because in the early 1950s they had primary water experts locate the water.

Tavares explains how the Climate Action Plans are a global phenomenon, with the alleged goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Furthermore, most of these plans have been approved and adopted by most county and municipal governments in the US without public knowledge or consent.

An example of that here is in Northern California, where our Climate Action Plan was approved and adopted June 5, 2012. All of the other cities here in Sonoma County in the wine country are adopting their plans right now. It’s very important to understand that they sign contracts and take grant money for the development of a template. Climate Action Plans are all templates of a universal, global plan, and they just insert their own cities’ pictures, and make it look like it’s tailored to your town. No. It’s diabolical. And it’s tailored globally.

With every property that is outside the city growth boundary being considered sprawl and unsustainable, what does that mean? It means that it’s going to be ultimately converted and rewilded. They want it converted back to natural habitat. Let’s look at the homes inside the city growth boundary. There are documents I talk about on the Rense Radio Network that every single building structure is out of compliance based on these corrupt corporate energy retrofitting requirements …

These climate action plans are requiring retrofitting This is the first tier of assault on all of our properties, where code enforcement will come out based on your allowing people to come in our home to conduct a “free” home energy audit. These audits go on a national data base–massive computing through NSA–every house is identified with the first requirement in your homes is going to be. Generally, you’re going to have a cool roof, you’re going to have to have solar energy, you’re going to have to convert all of your inefficient appliances and equipment to Energy Star-rated equipment, which is RFID, all inerfacing with the Smart Meter on the exterior of your homes.

38 thoughts on “Stealth Take-Down of America”

  1. I wonder sometimes if people are capable of paying attention to more than football catches.

    If oil is ABIOTIC, then there are NO SHORTAGES.

    That means that We The People were gouged for many years by the oil industry, and we should not shed any tears when their industry stops paying them megabucks for something that’s never going to run out.

    Again, for the butterheads – PEAK OIL WAS A LIE.

    1. Abiotic simply means it is not alive. ( or didn’t originate from something that was alive…..which is not exactly true in the case of oil). Money is abiotic; do you or anyone you know ever experience a shortage of money?

      Whatever the case may be, biotic or abiotic, one can experience a shortage…….water, jaguars. rocks, coral

      1. Cute.

        Here’s some info – I’m pretty well read on the subject:

        The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not new or recent. This theory was first enunciated by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951, almost a half century ago, (Kudryavtsev 1951) and has undergone extensive development, refinement, and application since its introduction. There have been more than four thousand articles published in the Soviet scientific journals, and many books, dealing with the modern theory. This writer is presently co-authoring a book upon the subject of the development and applications of the modern theory of petroleum for which the bibliography requires more than thirty pages.
        The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not the work of any one single man — nor of a few men. The modern theory was developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R., including many of the finest geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and thermodynamicists of that country. There have now been more than two generations of geologists, geophysicists, chemists, and other scientists in the U.S.S.R. who have worked upon and contributed to the development of the modern theory. (Kropotkin 1956; Anisimov, Vasilyev et al. 1959; Kudryavtsev 1959; Porfir’yev 1959; Kudryavtsev 1963; Raznitsyn 1963; Krayushkin 1965; Markevich 1966; Dolenko 1968; Dolenko 1971; Linetskii 1974; Letnikov, Karpov et al. 1977; Porfir’yev and Klochko 1981; Krayushkin 1984)
        The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not untested or speculative. On the contrary, the modern theory was severely challenged by many traditionally-minded geologists at the time of its introduction; and during the first decade thenafter, the modern theory was thoroughly examined, extensively reviewed, powerfully debated, and rigorously tested. Every year following 1951, there were important scientific conferences organized in the U.S.S.R. to debate and evaluate the modern theory, its development, and its predictions. The All-Union conferences in petroleum and petroleum geology in the years 1952-1964/5 dealt particularly with this subject. (During the period when the modern theory was being subjected to extensive critical challenge and testing, a number of the men pointed out that there had never been any similar critical review or testing of the traditional hypothesis that petroleum might somehow have evolved spontaneously from biological detritus.)
        The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences. In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses. Since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth’s near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. They also determined that the evolution of reduced hydrocarbon molecules requires pressures of magnitudes encountered at depths equal to such of the mantle of the Earth. During the second phase of its development, the modern theory of petroleum was entirely recast from a qualitative argument based upon a synthesis of many qualitative facts into a quantitative argument based upon the analytical arguments of quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamic stability theory. (Chekaliuk 1967; Boiko 1968; Chekaliuk 1971; Chekaliuk and Kenney 1991; Kenney 1995) With the transformation of the modern theory from a synthetic geology theory arguing by persuasion into an analytical physical theory arguing by compulsion, petroleum geology entered the mainstream of modern science.
        The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.

      2. You are a friggin jerk, you know that, you got told, move on mailbird, brainless jerk. As you were saying Vincent, this info is invaluable, makes you rethink alot of beliefs.

        1. John,

          I didn’t mean to pique your tender sensibilities. But since we are all researchers here proper protocol must be followed.

          Just a suggestion, you may find a thesaurus useful in that bane half curses and jagged slang hardly aid to underscore ones point, bro

  2. I have heard Ms Tavares before; she concentrates on California in her presentation here but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Follow this link to the national implications. A complete compendium of who, why, where will fill in the gaps. Agenda 21 explained in graphic detail:

    please pass on…

  3. That was a great interview! Amazing how insidious and connected all these agendas are.

    Wonder how many have given thought to NASA (and the other “space” agencies) being an enormous SCAM? They are certainly a big part of “climate change” science propaganda.
    Wonder how many readers here believe the Moon Landings were real? Hopefully Zero %.

    The so called “Space Shuttle”, “Space Station”, and various probes, landers and missions are also total special effects ‘Con Jobs’ designed to keep the money flowing and deceive the sheeple.

    Remember – “shooting” victim and gun control shill, Gabrielle Giffords is ‘married’ to Space Station “actor-naut” Captain Mark Kelly, whose twin brother Scott Kelly is preparing to pretend to spend a year in orbit, without a shower, in the so called “International Space Station”. Probably studying Global Warming 😉

    1. Just common sense alone should make a person suspicious of the moon landings. We supposedly landed men on the moon in 1969, then, returned them safely to earth, meanwhile, decades later we couldn’t even prevent Space Shuttles from blowing up while taking off and landing. Even today, I believe that we are incapable of landing men on the moon and bringing them home. It seems that a lot of our “reality” is nothing more than a Hollywood production.

      1. I don’t know that the Space Shuttle is fake, have no reason to think so. But in retrospect, through the mists of time, one has to say the moon landing is a cheese-fest of the first water. Those flimsy props, my God!
        And yet it is an article of faith in the religion of even scientific true believers in American manifest destiny. They won’t check back on it, won’t employ hindsight (which really is close to 20:20 sometimes!). Why? Because it would force them to confront authority, and that is simply too scary for most people.

        1. if you do enough research into the Shuttle et al, you will know it was fake. No people were inside the “Shuttle” prop when it was launched. Which means of course that the ISS is also bologna
          I put Nasa/ ESA psyops on the same level of truth as Sandy Hook, etc. Look at “Cluesforum” and the “Space” research there.

        2. I, too, have struggled with the Space Shuttle question.

          What bothers me most, however, is space suits. I can imagine that conventional technology can put such a device atop a roman candle and propel it into low earth orbit with people inside. But what is very difficult to accept is that those people could ever leave the vehicle, while it is in orbit.

          This quandary caused me to write a lengthy article about the problem, and my research only made me more troubled. A space suit is a miniature space ship. In space, the shade is essentially absolute zero in temperature; where the sun is shining, water would boil. The suit would have to be capable of switching between these extremes constantly, instantaneously, to keep the guy inside from freezing to death or roasting.

          Then there is the question of vomit. What would happen if the weirdness of zero gravity caused one to involuntarily spew chunks into the inside of the visor?

          Likewise, sweat. How to eliminate humidity? Does the screen of the helmet have a dehumidifier?

          Additionally, the air supply, and the power supply. (Don’t even get me started on micro-meteorites, unpredictable and moving faster than a gunshot.)

          They make these machines look so svelte, so perfectly matching the sic-fi literature everyone grew up with, but if that technology really exists, imagine how it could all be applied here on Earth. Well, if they have it, and only manufacture products using it in the dozens of units, or scores, is that not insane? The first iPhone’s value was the billions it cost to develop; the only reason the price is reasonable because that initial cost is spread across untold millions of units.

          That is, when something is impossible, and impossibly expensive, it probably isn’t real. Since we all grew up believing the science fiction we loved was simply the future foretold, we can be expected to believe it when we are told it has indeed come to be. “It’s about time,” most of us felt, without actually asking what it is we are being expected to believe.

          In a way, this is a metaphor for everything we discuss here at MHB. We are asked to believe ridiculous things, because they are presented to us with a straight face.

        3. I think we, here at MHB, all risk opening our minds so much our brains fall out. But that said, I’m with you on this one: “tentatively-but-increasingly-skeptical”…is that a fair assessment?

          I have the same gut feeling (because, really, that’s all it is in my case, as I simply do not know enough to state more firmly) about “fossil fuels”. Do you suppose we have all been stupid enough to believe that our major form of energy comes from decomposed dinosaur bones that’s millions of years old? On the face of it, that’s like saying that we were formed from pixie dust or some such, don’t you think? Maybe the real truth is stranger yet still?

          It’s a mind-blower to think about.

        4. Okay, so what about satellite communications. Are you saying they don’t exist? What about geo-mapping?

          Look, it is plain as day that the moon landing was about beating the Russians. What would be the point in having a rather advanced technology – and anyone who flies jets or is related to pilots of supersonic jets as I am knows that a lot has been done towards the low earth orbit ability. To knock that down – it’s taking skepticism into a realm where one may be skeptical about the skeptics. Originally, those debunking the moon landings asserted that the astronauts were only in low earth orbit. Maybe so, maybe not. But I think it has been conceded that low earth orbit is feasible.

        5. I have studied this closely over the last 6 years and can say with confidence that most of what Nasa/Esa does is fake. I know I could spend a few hours with most and prove to them that is the case. Feel free to be deceived, if that suits you.

        6. Satellites in a geosynchronous orbit at 22,300 miles out there is true. Low orbit satellites are true also but must be propelled to stay in orbit or will decay and fall to earth.

          The big problem I have the whole Moon ordeal is:

          1. The Van Allen belt protects Earth from the Suns radiation and it extends to about 35,000 miles above the earth. Once you go through or leave this protection your in pure danger as on the Moon. Death

          2. The Space suits and the battery packs to protect them is unbelievable in my opinion. Low orbit inside the Van Allen, short time maybe or is possible.

          3. Why has no one ever had the technology to this date to send a manned craft outside of the Van Allen belt muchless the moon?
          The Chinese say it will be 30 more years before they can send a man to moon, yet we did in 1969?
          The English,French and Russians haven’t, why?

          4. We have only performed Low-Orbit endeavors, 400 miles above the earth, since the Apollo program was cancelled and the Shuttle was employed.

          5. And here’s the kicker. After the last Apollo mission, Congress ordered Nasa NEVER build another Saturn V Rocket and NASA DESTROYED all the blue prints so we could Never build another.

          Congress said they did that so NASA would be “Forced” in building something better which became the Space Shuttle which is incapable of ever going to Moon……Really?

          That got them “Off” the hook so to say.

          I really don’t know the answer if we went or not but it’s pretty fishy to destroy your best technology isn’t it?

          And why not just lend our Space suits to anyone who dares to go outside the Van Allen Belt or travel to the Moon?

          Like 911, SHE, BMB, JFK, Obonga’s BC, and Who really runs America is something we will never know…

  4. The first question I ever asked on this blog was “is the conspiracy really so monstrous?”. Well there you go. Thanks for this information packed installment that reminds us of the matrix being built around us. Just ask anyone who lives in a National Heritage Area who has tried to make improvements or even tear down an old structure on their property; they will tell you that property ownership is an illusion.

    As for Bill Gates wanting zero carbon emissions by the year 2050; I invite him to lead the charge and shut up. That yap of his emits more carbon per day than a coke oven.

    1. That’s a good one Ric. The amount of research I do in one day is so heavy and dark that I need one good joke a day to keep my puny little brain…sane…..LOL…I am still laughing at that Gates remark….That should come from the mike on the UN podium..

    2. Rich–I’d like to know why Bill Gates is considered to be an ‘authority’ on anything other than what he made his fortune on. He’s not a scientist or a doctor but he and the missus are out there pretending they are on ‘world health’, climate issues and overpopulation. Gates and his father are big time eugenics fans. Why do we listen to billionaire psychos like Gates, Maurice Strong etc blame the peasants for ALL the ills of the world??? Having 20yrs experience down the rabbit hole I’m seriously beginning to think the world is now ruled by individuals with ‘different’ DNA. They may look like us but have no souls or conscience. They get their power from death,suffering and destruction.

      1. I don’t believe in “different DNA”, but I have never studied the subject. I tend to shy away from lizard people theories, and David Iche(not saying this is what you meant). However, I do believe that unlimited wealth and privilege can lead to a type of insanity causing these people to think they no longer put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us. I do however believe that someday they will stand in line and answer for everything they have done, just like the rest of us.

  5. Did anyone think the death count of the commuter rail in NY looked a little high? The story was that the train collided with an SUV and that it pushed it 1000 ft away from the crossing where it was stuck. Then both vehicles, the engine and the SUV burst into flames killing 5 people. There are no pictures of the other passengers who should have escaped the burning train car. I smelled something about this from the start, although there was an event last night outside of Boston where the truck driver was stuck at the crossing in ice and managed to escape. Although his semi is mangled badly, nobody was killed in it or on the train that hit it.

    The victim in the NY SUV has that look – kind of like Dawn Hochsprung if you know what I mean, and she is being remembered at certain sites…

    Why would anyone make up something like this? Is it about using it to get funding? I’m thinking Chinatown, Simpson’s Springfield Monorail etc.

    Clearly “our nation’s infrastructure” is not delivering on its promises these days.

    1. Being a freight engineer I have seen rail do some pretty strange things. Whatever happened in that wreck looks like a perfect storm.

      Questions? how does the gasoline get in the carriage and burn it up?
      If the car was hit at 58 mph, and dragged 1000 feet the gas would either ignite quickly and burn up or spill onto the tracks, but was their enough to keep burning intensely enough for a thousand feet to toast a whole carriage?

      Where are the cars headlights, grill and radiator. Looks like a stripped wreck before it was hit, maybe even a little rusty in the one photo.

      This happened in the dark, but the nighttime video shows no car, flames or smoke. yet the daytime photos show the car wedged under the front of the engine. Reminds me of the bicycle wedged under the car in that California shooting.

      I have seen freight locomotives center punch fuel tanks on semi’s at road crossings and damage can be severe, but never have I seen a little car do so much damage. At 58 mph, it seems the train should have knocked that little buggy into next week.

    2. Also, I have read grumblings(after this incident) about PTC(Positive Train Control) A big money project mandated by the 2008 Rail Safety Act(I think), which most freight railroads are way behind implementing(2015 deadline), and which would most likely not have mitigated this incident. Its design is mostly to keep trains from colliding, not prevent crossing incidents.

    3. I definitely had the same thought. Maybe it was a two-fer, wasn’t there a bigshot banker killed?

    4. Musings, to be honest, I’ve reached a point where I don’t believe any of them any longer. Today I ran across another “shooting” incident, I think in North Carolina, but there were no details at all. The only message was; “seek safe cover and OBEY THE AUTHORITIES (emphasis added)”.

      My first thought was “its a drill”. Just more modeling and programming. I’m not sure what to make of railway accidents. There was a spate of them a while back. They ignore so much in order to hype certain ones. Sometimes the reason appears obvious, others not so much.

      My only conclusion is that the expectation is that we will dimly register these things on some level. It isn’t anticipated that we’ll analyze them.

      1. It appears that the victims in the train, once announced, are (at least in the one case I checked) verifiable. One man was a well-known curator at the Met. Indeed these commuter trains take people from their often posh jobs in Manhattan to their “tony” suburbs. I have traveled on these trains in the past, and (even in countless older movies) they are full of well-heeled commuters. Perhaps I am a little shell-shocked from the other manifestly fake stuff. This incident seems to have involved a freak event in the first train – from what I read (whether true or not), the third rail somehow got bunched up inside it and ignited. It sounds like a case for the NTSB. So I leave this one aside for now, and perhaps should not have cluttered up the board with it.

  6. Here’s another great whistleblower video (published July 30, 2013 by a Mr. Hunt who has audio of Edmond de Rothschild and Maurice Strong:

  7. The fact that there is water in the Earth’s mantle does not mean that water is available to us. There are both technological and legal problems.

    While volcanoes certainly do spew water vapor into the air all the time, humans do not have access to the same source! No technology exists to pump water up from the mantle, or even very far into the crust of the earth. Water wells usually go no more than 200 feet, and once the head is pumped off (water pressure that formerly pushed water up) that may be the end of your well. The technology simply does not exist to bring water up from deep wells.

    The water vapor volcanoes contribute, moreover, falls to earth as rain, so is subject to the same weather and wind vagaries governing precipitation as the water vapor due to evaporation from the surfaces of large bodies of water.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the drought in California is real. I have personally examined diversion records and precipitation records (stream gage records) in Colorado going back over 100 years in various places, and seen a pattern of a major drought occurring about every 25 years. The drought in 2002, for instance, was huge–a 500-year drought. These records are not fake.

    People make use of surface water flowing in streams because it is obviously easy. It’s much harder and far more expensive to drill a well. Sometimes the water in deep aquifers is also brackish and undrinkable.

    On top of the scarcity of surface water caused by drought, in almost all Western states there is a prior appropriation system which allocates who gets such water as is physically available. it is “first in time, first in right.” Users who came on the stream and obtained more junior water rights are cut off. Ms. Tavares deplores privatization of water while still insisting there is plenty of water to go around–but no, there isn’t, BECAUSE of privatization. The senior water rights are being acquired by private interests, who then control the physical supply. This is what Maurice Strong tried to do in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. (He lost his case because the application was speculative, by the way.)

    1. when the American people finally realize that weve all already had the death blow delivered and no one even knows it and how evil these people that have done this too us are .Its the devil killing god in us and us just sitting back and letting them

Comments are closed.