numbers are much higher, the majority of those remaining to commit. When it is clear that Obama has won more
states, won more pledged delegates, and won more of the popular vote, then the super delegates as a block will put him
over the top. Dean has called for an essential super delegate election by asking all to publicly announce by July 1.
Once Obama has more than the 2025 needed, seating Michigan and Florida are a moot point, and arguing who the
nominee should be is also a moot point. With great fanfare the Democratic party can begin promoting Obama and
turning their backs on the Clintons, who will be left talking to themselves, ignored. This will be sudden death for the
Clinton ambitions.
http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta443.htm[2/5/2012 11:13:48 AM]
ZetaTalk: Common Good
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Common Good
written Oct 11, 2003
Politics aside, what should those who took an oath to defend the common good do as Planet X hooves increasingly
near? As with the meeting of heads of state in France, where the excuse was to discuss Iraq and mend fences, the
meeting of defense departments in Colorado used the excuse of NATO war games. In both cases, it should be noted,
discussions were not electronically transmitted, potentially to be tapped, but were done face-to-face. The choices are to
explain all, explain nothing, to leak the truth in driblets, to give fictional explanations, or to provide the truth in part.
Any announcement that would tell the public all, admitting the cover-up lo these many decades, and confessing
the failure to divert the path of Planet X, was deemed to tie up their resources in public meetings and
explanations for actions almost wholly not of their doing. Those in charge of perpetrating the cover-up should do
the explaining, and any plan for the common good should include this as an outcome.
To participate in the current cover-up, where rising seas and increasing earthquakes and meteor showers and the
presence of a second sun are suppressed in the media, was universally decried as the problem, not the solution.
If those charged with the defense of the common good were not in control of the media, they could at least not
participate in the cover-up. No comment would be the stance, so that once again those continuing the cover-up
would be facing an angry public, as it should be.
In that leaks had occurred, and were anticipated to increase, the decision was made to foster, rather than
suppress or punish, leaks. When asked to confirm any leaks, a shrug of the shoulder, no comment, would be the
stance, leaving the pubic and the press to hound the source of the leak for more information, once again diverting
distraction from this group concerned about the common good.
Fictional explanations, perpetrated during the cover-up, were deemed an exercise counter to the intent of the
group. Endlessly posturing the current global changes in the light of Global Warming, Solar Flares, or
unexplained cyclical climate changes were to be left to those groups tasked with this cover-up. Already under
attack, asked to explain the discrepancies in the data and obvious cases of doctored data, these groups would
then find their mission come home to their doorstep, appropriately.
What was to be admitted was ongoing earth changes, major quakes, broken cities, flood tides and super storms,
and the visibility of something next to the Sun, flinging meteors and dust toward Earth. This stance allows this
group to react to disasters on Earth without the need to defend or continue a cover-up. This stance provides for a
disaster of a pole shift or a passage with no harm, encompassing both scenarios. This stance puts those charged
with defense of the common good in the same shoes as the common man, aware of earth changes as they occur,
not in the shoes of NASA or the elite, aware for decades of the path and approach of Planet X.
http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta34.htm[2/5/2012 11:13:49 AM]
ZetaTalk: Greater Need
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Greater Need
written Oct 11, 2003
The US Military, in particular, has been used not for the defense of the common good but to procure corporate
interests, and is deeply resentful of this. Hardly in defense of freedom and democracy, the last several wars have been
to secure lands or defend existing holdings, using the US Military like a private army. The war games discussed during
the NATO exercises included disasters equivalent to those we have predicted for the pole shift, immense devastation
sparing none. In the event that such a scenario ensues, increasing volcanic eruption, quake torn roads and crumbling
cities, mass populations homeless and roving the countryside, how should treaties installing the US Military in bases
around the world be viewed? All countries would be affected, all armies devastated and occupied with such an
emergency, and no borders of concern when sheer survival is the only concern. In the event of such earth changes,
troops would be brought home, under stealth and with little fanfare, to the respective homelands, leaving at most a
skeleton crew at the bases. The excuse would be the greater need at home.
http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta35.htm[2/5/2012 11:13:50 AM]
ZetaTalk: Not Politics
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Not Politics
written Oct 11, 2003
At Schreiver Air Force Base [in Colorado Springs] as military and civilian leaders from all
the NATO nations engaged in a study seminar ... NATO has decided to mount a new NATO
Response Force, composed of about 20,000 personnel, that can respond instantly to
asymmetric threats ... Wednesday’s war game, the centerpiece of a two-day gathering of
NATO defense secretaries and chiefs of staff, was designed to get the member nations thinking
about how to react in such cases.
NATO Conducts Rapid-Reaction War Game
Washington Post, Oct 8
Given the increasingly obvious fact that Planet X is in the vicinity and not going away before trashing the
neighborhood, and the decision and actions taken last August by the US Military to supplant the White House as
Commander in Chief with their own internal leadership, how should the meeting of NATO commanders for supposed
war games be viewed? Would not war games be better played in Europe, where most participants reside? As NATO is
a North Atlantic defense alliance, is not the western portion of the continental US an inappropriate setting? And where
are the politicians, strutting about on the stage and explaining the situation to the public? Compare this meeting to one
some months ago in France, where heads of state from all over the world met supposedly to discuss Iraq and mend
fences, a representation of the worlds countries that rivaled meetings at the UN. The NATO meeting was unannounced,