Facts Change Minds, Even Mine

For a very long time now I have been unconvinced of governmental or other man-made interference with the weather.  Even through major weather-created disasters, I have felt that these were simply the results of naturally occurring cyclical weather patterns due to nature and that there are many cycles that recur over very long periods of time, sometimes much longer than mankind’s memory.

I have heard all the worrisome reports from many who have claimed HAARP is being used to control the weather, that he who controls the weather has an invincible weapon to use against his enemies, and how the government wants to control the populace with something so powerful the people can’t fight back.  I have pretty much dismissed all of these kinds of claims as over-the-top conspiracy theories because no one had any documented facts to substantiate such claims.

Today, however, I found out about Deborah Tavares and her very well-researched  documentation that has changed my mind.  Ms. Tavares has, since 2011, been digging into this issue.  She has copies of emails between PG&E officials and government officials in which plans are discussed in detail regarding what they refer to as “space weather”, how it is to be accomplished, what has already been accomplished, what the results have been, what future results can be expected, how the information is to be disseminated to the public, the timeline such dissemination should follow, anticipation of negative responses from the public and detailed plans on how to address such responses in the media using particular people the public would be inclined to believe to accomplish this.

Ms. Tavares has been fairly quiet in all of her work, especially since 2015.  But what is most interesting to me is that, even that long ago, she was gathering documentation that showed how plans were being laid to set large areas of northern California on fire, thereby forcing the people who lived in those areas to require housing.  The housing need would be immediate and imperative.  This would mean the housing authorities would be allowed to change their maximum density rules so that more people would be permitted in less space.

I have long believed that the worst thing humans can do is pack themselves into cities.  It isn’t good for physical health due to infectious diseases.  It isn’t good for mental health because there is no escape from external noise and the forced interaction with others on a constant basis.  People need to be able to find a place to think and work out their own problems, major and minor, so they can cope better.  Being tightly packed into places with others causes high levels of anxiety.  Tthe potential to snap or lose the ability to cope while dealing with personal stressors is greatly increased when people are unable to find quiet, peaceful places to think without others nearby.

However, the UN has put forth their Agenda 21, which pushes all affluent nations to move their citizens to cities, remove rural people from rural areas, have the governments control the areas outside of the cities, and carefully monitor all transportation between city and rural locales.

Recently, in California, Governor Jerry Brown has been pushing for a tax that would be charged according to each mile a person drives.  That would certainly restrict movement between city and rural travel.

But now we have these fires, massive fires, in California the likes of which have not been seen before.  There have always been horrible fires in California each year because of normal drying out of summer vegetation and the winds that occur in the Fall, but they have not normally been in areas of habitation, at least not to the extent that large housing developments have been greatly impacted.  Some may say this is because there were fewer such developments in the past, but the fires that normally occur begin in forested areas.  These fires are beginning in developed areas, almost as if areas of habitation are being targeted and not forested land where dried brush and undergrowth are normally the culprit.

Ms. Tavares has shown a link between California’s citizens’ refusal to accept Smart Meter electrical technology and the conscious decision to target California with damaging “space weather” (the term used in the emails indicating controlled weather effects) to upset things to such an extent that people would need housing so desperately they would comply with any demands in order to find shelter.  This would allow PG&E to install Smart Meters on newly built housing.  Smart Meters would allow the utilities to control how much energy each household has access to.  Heating and cooling, as well as lighting and information via media and Internet could all be controlled via the electrical allowance for each household by controlling the Smart Meter for that household.

The email copies Ms. Tavares has contain discussions between the public utilities and government officials about changing the target of space energy collectors, which have been in place orbiting the earth for decades now, from the Mohave Desert to Sebastopol in northern California.  Such controlled energy targeted to a particular point could be to produce power to a local area, but it could also be used to cause devastating damage, possibly igniting major fire hazards.

Ms. Tavares has a website stopthecrime.com where anyone can seek further information about the many issues she has done research on over the years.  But this all ties together so well, the pieces all fit and the documentation backs it up, to the extent that I now believe there is a massive undertaking by major utility companies working hand-in-glove with the government at a local level, possibly in several areas in the USA, but definitely in California, to achieve the UN Agenda 21 goals which would control all lands, urban and rural, thereby controlling the food source, and usurping the individual’s right to determine their own allotment of energy and where they live.

Some may feel that the government would never allow such danger and loss of life to its citizens for any reason.  I would refer those people to the historical evidence and point to Lenin, who allowed millions of his own people to starve to death, and Mao, who purposely allowed millions of his own people to starve to death, in order to accomplish their political agendas.  When someone believes they know better than anyone else what is good for everyone else, when they are convinced in their own mind that this is their purpose in life, giving them any control, however slight, is extremely dangerous.

If there was ever undisputed proof of why limits on government should be greatly enforced, this is it.  The more people seek help and/or relief from government, the more control government gains over the people.  When government attempts to regulate the people rather than the people regulating government, societies fall apart quickly.

I believe that there is a God and that when mankind reaches such a point of power and control, nature deals mankind a huge blow to humble us all.  It has happened many times in humanity’s past, even before recorded history.  There are archeological findings that prove this.  For those who have felt the inexplicable feeling of urgency to prepare for unknown, impending dangers so much in recent years, I must confess that I feel it, too.  If mankind, with all our weaknesses and arrogance, feels that he can control the unimaginable power of nature in the domination of his fellow man, there is going to be some mistake made, some error in judgment, someone who will try to push things a bit too far or fast and millions will pay the price to humble us all.

There are technological advances that improve life for millions all over the world.  Such advances are to be lauded.  But, as with anything, what can be used for good can also be used for ill.  We are only human.  One of our greatest flaws is our inability to rein ourselves in when tempted to wield control over others because each of us feels we are smart and have a good understanding of what is best.  The problem is when we try to impose our view of what is best on others and deny them the right to live according to their own conscience.

Agenda 21 is extremely bad for everyone.  Trying to control large groups of people is a powder keg of disaster waiting to be ignited.  But purposely causing large scale destruction and harm to people is proof of government gone amuk.  Read, research, learn, and DO NOT COMPLY with anything that makes you feel uneasy.  Trust your instincts, but act on facts.

Is it Constitutional?, Law, Politics

Second Ammendment

Even if every gun, knife, car, truck, and any other man-made item that could possibly be used to kill on a mass scale were completely removed from the face of the earth, man’s ingenuity would find a way to make something that would accomplish the same effect using rocks if nothing else. The idea that laws are going to prevent crime of any kind is absurd. Laws only punish bad behavior. They don’t, and never will, prevent bad behavior. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It simply is not possible to make mental illness a crime. To restrict the liberties of sane people because of the mental illness of a fraction of the population is ridiculous.

Is it Constitutional?, Liberalism, Politics

The REAL Reason for Gun Control

Response to online comment by calebsmum to article on Blue Lives Matter website, article titled “Nationwide Manhunt For Michael Bullinger After Multiple Dead Women Found On His Property” dated June 21, 2017

Some background:  calebsmum was responding to someone who disagreed with his/her favorable stand on gun control which morphed into what his/her true issues seem to be.

calebsmum How do we pollute less? Lots of way. 🙂 Live close to your work so that you can walk or bike instead of commute 30 minutes to an hour, like many people do. Use carpools, public transportation, bikes; use solar or other alternative energy sources to heat/cool your home. If you don’t need it, don’t use it (air conditioning). Many people use it just to be comfortable when it’s not necessary, instead stay cool by closing doors and windows during the heat of the day, using deciduous trees to block the sun during the summer but allow heat during the winter…we CAN do more, it’s just that many people feel selfishly entitled to what they want, instead of what’s best.

My response:  You are a very dangerous person.  You presume to know what’s “best.”  Best for whom?  Everyone?  The entire world?  Just who the hell are you to make such assumptions?  You think that everyone should live as you choose to live and everyone should agree with your ideologies.  And if they don’t, you call them selfish?  Selfish according to your personal judgment?  Again, just who the hell are you?  You think that you have all the answers to save the world and mankind.  You see no problem with infringing on others’ rights or freedoms when it will enforce your personal beliefs.

That is the definition of fascism.  You feel it is just fine to tax, fine, and even imprison people if they don’t adhere to your ideas of what is right for all of mankind.  God made this planet and presented it to man.  God Himself gave man the freedom to choose who to worship and obey, and you weren’t on the list of choices.

Who or what the hell gave you the superior authority to overrule anyone on how they should live, where they should live, how they should heat or cool their homes, what form of transportation they should use or how comfortable they should be while doing any of that?

And none of that has anything to do with whether people have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions being placed on them when they purchase such weapons.  But you think you’re so morally superior and have so much more knowledge that you should be able to dictate that as well.

And when people refuse to comply with all your high and mighty edicts then the punishments are visited on them.  Well, if you wish to call me selfish, that is your label not mine.  I am an individual and I have the freedom to make my own choices.  I will not comply with enforced morality based on computer models and junk science and consensus rather than empirical, factual evidence.  Not when it is in regard to how I live my life or how I defend my life.

You, and those who think as you do, are pompous asses.  You seek to rule over people in every aspect of their daily lives and control them completely because you think you have that superior right, much as Islam rules over people.  Well, if God didn’t seek to force me to agree with Him and gave me dominion over the earth, if He didn’t try to force me to worship Him, I sure as hell am not about to bow down to you and your ideas of what is important or necessary for the earth to survive and I’m never going to be forced to worship at the altar of man-made computer models which pose as science.

As for your ideas on gun control, stop fearing your fellow-man.  The only reason you want gun control is because, when people refuse to do what you tell them to do, you don’t want them armed and able to defend themselves to prevent their being imprisoned for not complying.  Even God didn’t go that far.  So who the hell are you to think your ideas are more worthwhile than His?  You are a fascist and you label others as fascists for not agreeing with you.  That’s what the left always does.  They paint others with the identifying label before it is used against them.  Saul Alinsky much?

You know perfectly well that it isn’t safety against unhinged people having guns that is at the heart of this gun control argument.  It sounds all compassionate, but it’s really about keeping the populace under control so that other restrictive rules can be pushed down people’s throats and then, when they refuse to be pushed any further, they won’t be able to defend themselves from being pushed the last few steps into complete domination by tyranny.  This isn’t NRA talking points.  Read history from ancient times through to the present day.  It’s always the same pattern.  As I said in the beginning, you are a very dangerous person.

Liberalism, Politics

Liberalism Equals True Facism

The left only knows how to dish it.  They talk the talk all the time, but they can never walk the walk.  It’s fine for them to use the most horrific, terrifying, tasteless, obnoxious, outlandish, vile, vulgar, bullying, destructive, and harmful tactics against others, but as soon as anyone says the least insulting word or makes the least unflattering comment about them, suddenly it’s hate speech or needs to be litigated.  They can say anything they like and it’s free speech, but no one else can say a word against them.  They’re the fascists that they accuse everyone else of being.

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of fascism is:  A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

According to the left, their political philosophy, movement or regime most certainly exalts race above the individual.  Example: Michael Brown and any BLM advocate, including Maxine Waters who claims a woman of color cannot be impeached.

According to the left, their political philosophy, movement or regime most certainly stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (Obama saying he would do what he wanted with his pen and phone regardless of Congress), severe economic and social regimentation (decades of welfare entitlements draining the taxpayers), (affirmative action programs to force people to conform to dictated regimental requirements).

But most telling of all is the left’s political philosophy, movement or regime that forces suppression of opposition, as evidenced by their constant funding of rioters, student protesters, and educators at every grade level who refuse to allow anyone to express their point of view openly and freely if it is in opposition to the left’s point of view.

About the only thing that doesn’t prove the left to be fascists is that they don’t exalt the United States of America.  They want to destroy the nation and remake it into their facist utopia.

Griffin is no different from the rest of the leftist liberals.  They’re all of one mind and require everyone else to either agree with them or be destroyed, and they don’t hold themselves to any of the standards they require of everyone else.  They are the true fascists.

Conservatism, Liberalism, Politics

Human Nature and Liberals

Human nature has always been the same and always will be. We form societies and we try to conduct ourselves in a more productive and less barbaric way (except perhaps for those in the Middle East), but our instinctive human nature will never be done away with. As a species we can make Herculean efforts to overcome instincts, but we are a part of nature just as any other living creature is and we have limitations to what we can accomplish, especially in the face of such a powerful force as nature. Liberals are constantly wanting mankind to defer to nature in all other ways and yet, when it comes to the closest part of man to nature, our human nature, our instincts, they refuse to acknowledge it and scream loudly that we must do away with it. Not only isn’t it possible, but it’s what keeps us alive on the most basic levels. Their cry is “Hate yourself for being a natural man but love and respect everything else that is natural.” What a crock.

This is the major reason why trying to make everyone and everything “equal” and calling for “social justice” will never work. Humans are just as individually distinct from one another as members of any other species. We are not cookie cutter duplicates of each other and we cannot be herded and coralled as if we were. That sort of societal structure will fail every time it is tried. We need to be free just as much as any other animal. That is why liberal goals will never be achieved, at least not for very long, and why conservative goals always seem to be so much more successful.

Conservatives strive for the best but realize the realities that will have to be accommodated due to basic, unchanging human nature. Instead of fighting reality, we try to work with it to achieve more lasting results. We are more patient and willing to allow the process and learning curve to take shape over time. We are aware of possible bumps in the road and willing to adjust and even stop pursuing a course of action if reality shows it is not going to work.

Liberals want what they want right now and what they want isn’t ever going to be possible because they refuse to accept that we are part of nature and will always have basic, natural, instinctive behaviors. Liberals are like children who demand to have what they want and who throw temper tantrums and scream louder when they can’t have it. They are always unsatisfied and unhappy, always pushing for others to give them more and more and never grateful for what they already have. They embody the worst of human nature and they never seem to mature.

Law, Uncategorized

Islam is NOT a Religion

Islam is a governmental system. It is a totalitarian system that dominates every aspect of daily life. It is tyranny on steroids. The religion that Islam allows is Muslim. Muslim is a religion, but only able to exist if Islam is the system of government.

Muslim cannot exist without Islam to support it and Islam cannot exist without Muslim followers because neither one allows for any freedom or questioning or individuality. The Muslim faith MUST have a legal system (Sharia) and governmental system (Islam) that will enforce its religious practices or else people will question its practices and many will no longer abide by them. Islam MUST have Muslim believers because without them the government would have too many people questioning its tyrannical hold and dominance over them and many would rise up against that government.

Christianity existed long before there was a USA constitution and without Christianity, the USA would still be able to maintain its legal system and government. The USA does not need world dominance to exist and remain strong on its own. The USA was founded mainly on Christian teachings, but it would survive with Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist teachings just as well. Islam cannot do that, which is why they continually try to force Islam on every living being.

If there is even one person who does not submit to Islam, Islam is imperiled because that one person would be the weak link in their chain of dominance. The human spirit always seeks freedom. That will always be Islam’s weakness.

Conservatism, Is it Constitutional?, Law, Uncategorized

Offense Cannot Be Legislated

“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit.  We are answerable for them to our God.  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”  Thomas Jefferson


In other words, if it causes no physical or financial harm, it cannot be legislated or punished because it cannot be submitted to.  Offense is in the eye of the beholder.  It is a choice.  No one should be compelled by government to NOT offend another because it is up to the person who claims offense to be or not be offended.  I cannot be held responsible for your opinion and your opinion is no more valid than mine.  Therefore, be offended if you wish.  It is based on your opinion and your choice.  You cannot force me to agree with you anymore than I can force you to agree with me.  It is not something that can be legislated.   That would be an attempt to force an opinion by restricting freedom of thought and the right to disagree.  It would be TYRANNY.