And don’t forget Trailer #1, which makes it all much more clear:
Remember, you are free to share and repost this as you wish, with no permission needed, just ask for a link (credit) back to this blog or my Red Pill Sunday School Youtube channel.
Maybe you and your friends and family should see this before deciding whether or not to get any more vaccines?
–Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com) –Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020
Want to know what Covid-19 is and who invented it, and see the whole story behind the story of how all other Naturally occurring disease agents are turned into biological weapons like SARS-2 (Covid-19) and why these experiments are funded by your own government to be lab-grown? Want to finally understand what has happened to and who has taken over the medical, pharma, and so-called “scientific” industries?
In this short Red Pill show I simply introduce what is my current major project on SARS-2, which will eventually lead into the release of Part One of Lethal Injection 2: A Corruption Of Blood.
As always, but especially with this, I encourage you to share it freely and to feel free to copy, redistribute (free, without profit), and send this to every politician and professional you can find contact for, if for no other reason to show their complicity by ignoring it. You have permission to shorten it into a smaller version or as part of one of your own. This is a documentary for True researchers, for film-makers, and for all to learn, not for mere time-wasting, pointless entertainment. I hold no copyright or other legal title, only asking for credit and contact info to be included in any repost.
This is only part one, and there will be much more coming. Lethal Injection 2, Part 1, will be posted here within the next couple of months or sooner, and from then on other sections whenever I can, as well as the conclusion parts for Wagging The Dog, for there is so much more behind that story.
I say again, this is a life or death situation. If we ignore the crimes against Nature and the Scientific Method that are being perpetrated by these so-called, government/military funded “scientists” in their biological terrorism as defined by their own US Code, then what is coming down the road will make Covid-19 look like the rather strange and brain-damaging day in Disneyland it always is. If left unchecked, they will kill us.
The side effect of this film is that, once you see and understand this religious cult of scientism and how it’s infiltrated into all institutions of so-called arts and sciences, suddenly the truth is obvious and unmistakable, and the question of why the whole world seems so screwed up is answered – because it’s being run by sociopathic men that believe to be a so-called “scientist” is to play god, from doctors to astrophysicists to experimental researchers. Their goal is to change you, to improve you, to take a big crap all over God, Nature, Its Design and Its Law. They are the source of trans humanism, and their new vaccine is a transhumanist tool to reprogram your DNA through synthetic RNA, which is an essential step toward the futurist agenda.
As I’ve said from the beginning, there is a war against man and Nature, and you are right in the heart of it, though you hardly even comprehend it happening all around you. You pay for it through taxes, and you support it through voting and chatting and clicking like or dislike, thumb’s up or thumb’s down, on every artifice and shiny screen you see. You are essentially, through ignorance and inaction, funding and supporting your own disease and demise. You even watch movies depicting such apocalyptic landscapes, zombie hoards, and killer viral outbreaks. You’ve been made to love that which you should abhor, even to have a longing for such anarchic visions.
But now it’s time to wake up out of your sleep and defend that which is your Life, your substance, that which causes you existence. Time to fight and to protect that which Truly sustains you.
But first you must learn what is behind this current trickery and the biological weapons research that is and has been happening for decades right under your nose, from which Covid-19 emerged. Only with this knowledge may you justify your actions to defend yourself and your family from what these same, so-called “scientists” have stored up and just waiting to be “accidentally” released into the public.
.
Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com) Sunday, October 18, 2020
Welcome to the third installment of my third book, entitled Strawman Logic: A Choice Between Two Evils. As I continue reading and commenting on my latest, always free work, we finally get to the meat of the subject, that is, how our soul (spirit) is separated from us, so that our mind and body may be controlled (driven) without spiritual considerations, which is called incorporation (emancipation). To incorporate is to disallow spiritual action, to temporarily kill the souls of men, replacing the moral (unwritten) law with man’s (strict written) or Roman (contract) law. Without choice, without free will, there is only administrative law, otherwise known as bureaucracy. Once free will is replaced with merely empty choices leading to the same evil, the STRAWMAN is complete. This is the path we have all been tricked into following instead of (in the place of) the example of Christ (Logos). And now the purpose and intent of The Corporation Nation can be understood and, if the will is still there, overcome.
The choice is and always has been in your hand and yours alone.
.
–Clint richard-son (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, July 10th, 2020
“To believe in God is impossible. Not to believe in Him is absurd.”
—Voltaire
—=—
This seemingly contradicting statement is in fact not at all a contradiction. But to rationalize its meaning, one must understand gender as it applies to grammar and language. Please allow me to extrapolate this French Enlightenment author’s apparent conflict as what is likely the same thought process as most rational people out there would likely agree upon.
Did you know that the word hell as used in the Bible is actually a feminine noun? (See: Strong’s #H7585 – shĕ’owl)
Inversely, then, it’s only reasonable to conclude, and correctly so, that heaven is of course a masculine noun. (See: Strong’s #H8064 – shamayim)
But then that makes the word satan, the king of hell (metaphorically of lies and artifice), a masculine noun, since a king is supposedly sovereign. (See: Strong’s #H7854 – satan)
We choose our God not by some vain belief or religious title, but by which law we follow. Under legal (Roman) law, the Natural Law (of God) becomes emasculated, and so is subjective to the contract. The contract makes the law, and the creator controls, as the foundational maxims of law go. And the author, maker, as the principal of that contract is now a god (masculinely speaking).
As we consider the strength of these concepts and words, whether we are conscious of it or not, we naturally consider them as either masculine or feminine in their nature or design. But again, this is not at all a reference to male and female. The difference here is exactly what this counter-cultural agenda is really about – neutering the English language, and thus the english speaking ethnicity of the world, like any other live-stocked animal.
–=–
–=–
Just what do you think would happen to these terms if their purely non-sexual (and non-humanistic), grammatical qualities of masculinity (rank, authority) and femininity (lowness in rank, subjection) were to be obliterated from the conscious thought processes of most people? What if suddenly you could make no choice because you could use no masculine force behind any word you speak? What if heaven and hell were made grammatically equal to each other in their grammatical definitions and thus neutral in their comparison and authority to one another, simply because political correctness overcame common sense? This is not a trick question… hell would then be equal to heaven in mens minds. Fiction would become equal to the reality it copies. Men (as legal, “natural” persons) would become equal to corporations (artificial persons). Lies would become equal to truth. What is adversarial would be made equal to what is Source. For there would be no gender-biased nouns or pronouns allowed in our language to differentiate what is the Light and what is the darkness, what is a right and what is slavery, and what is a living child and what is not. Life is a masculine word, a verb (action) given a name (noun).
Oh, and have you stopped to consider, what possible use will the Trivium Method be when its very root of good and proper grammar has been twisted and reseeded into a giant wall of nothingness? What would become of the art and power of debate if such gender specific terms were disallowed upon the debate stage?
You might expect the word darkness to be either feminine or masculine. But sadly, the dark is neither of these, being rather a state of pure ignorance and adversarial-ness to all things. In other words, the dark is merely gender neuter. And as this grammatical neutering (darkening) of modern English continues, the achievement of darkness (neuter) towards the inability to articulate language properly is the endgame — a total dumbing down of society through an organized campaign of venomous, anti-bias, legally enforced, “green” neutrality laws.
Apparently, Mother Nature just called in and requested no longer to be called Mother, but by the preferred non-gender specific pronoun and description, “Neutral Relative Nature.” For to suggest a feminine quality to Nature Itself would mean that creation is not equal to its Creator. God (Jehovah) is being feminized from every angle!
“And God said, tell them the I am neuter gender sent you…” Lol! You must fear the neutrality of God not so almighty!
Yeah… this just doesn’t quite seem to work, does it?
To call this gender movement as adversarial (satanic) is an understatement.
In this short statement of reason by Voltaire above, so much is said therein that a discourse in it’s meaning would be daunting. However, as a devout antagonist of the organized, corporate Catholic (universal) religion, we find that these statements can only be explained when linguistic gender is taken into consideration. For the religions of the world (standing as secular corporations of men) have indeed grammatically feminized the notion of what is the word “God” while the Truest intent of that word as written (in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) is as a Supreme Sovereignty, being a purely masculine term. And so to say that this feminized (emasculated) “god” of the corporate church and its various protesting denominations of religion around the world is impossible to believe in is and certainly should be the rational, compos mentis (of right mind) reaction as man’s first and last impression of the Bull of any false church. But the scriptural scholar, as he who seeks and understands the very definition of God (Jehovah) in the Bible and its lexicons and concordances without opinion, which is all that is self-existent and self-evident in oneness, in other words all that is not man-made, as the Oneness of the entirety of all that Exists in and of Itself — the Universe as a monotheistic, timeless, Living (Eternally Existing) wholeness called as the verb (Jehovah) and purposefully mis-transliterated by the agents of the Popes and kings as “God,” then certainly it would be an absurdity to lay claim to the self-evident error of believing religiously that Existence (God) does not Exist. For this is the emasculation (de-gendering) of the entirety of Nature, It’s Law, and of all Life therein. This non-belief in Reality (God) robs the Natural force and Law from all of Nature, including all men turned pusillanimous by such grammatical gender modification of the Supreme Being (verb).
Of course, grammatically, the word Him used above by Voltaire and in the Bible as a reference to the word “God” is not a True reference to a male persona or figure, but to the non-sexually oriented masculinity of the gender of words by their grammatical meaning. You see, these openly coordinated attacks happening today on assignment-sexuality and gender roles and names (pronouns) are not attacks on sexuality or even upon foundational science, but upon the power and authority of words to describe what is foundational (as the qualities of masculinity and femininity) and the ability to reasonably and without idiosyncrasy use them in common, correct, authoritative discourse. When we seek the definition of this word gender, very little is said about the sexual orientations of men, for in the language arts gender is a metaphoric tool to express either a dominance or subservience, objective or subjective quality or character. A female may therefore be assigned masculinity by her words just as easily as any male. The necessity for such differentiation is perhaps the most important aspect of our ability to communicate with reason. It’s all about which words are more authoritative (masculine) or more inferior (feminine) than and towards the others. Only the foolish, publicly educated and brutally entertained multitude would actually resent such ancient grammatical structure as somehow sexist or biased. And yet this current campaign of gender neutrality serves no other purpose than to completely remove the properness of language structure from the already dumbed-down slave-speak of dog-Latin (English) we already bark so poorly and ineloquently.
Imagine a world, as the one currently being shaped around us is incrementally showing, with a culture of neutral (non-gender biased) thought patterns and language crafting.
Just what is neutrality?
More importantly, what power can be gained over a common people when their ability to communicate has been thoroughly neutered like domesticated animals?
NEUTRAL – adjective – [Latin From neuter.] 1.Not engaged on either side; not taking an active part with either of contending parties. It is policy for a nation to be neutral when other nations are at war. Belligerents often obtain supplies from neutral states. 2.Indifferent; having no bias in favor of either side or party. 3.Indifferent;neither very good nor bad. Some things good, and some things ill do seem, And neutral some in her fantastic eye… – noun – A person or nation that takes no part in a contest between others. The neutral as far as his commerce extends,becomes a party in the war. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)
NEUTER – adjective – [Latin not either.] 1.Not adhering to either party; taking no part with either side, either when persons are contending, or questions are discussed. It may be synonymous with indifferent, or it may not. The United States remained neuter during the French Revolution, but very few of the people were indifferent as to the success of the parties engaged. A man may be neuter from feeling, and he is then indifferent; but he may be neuter in fact, when he is not in feeling or principle. A judge should be perfectly neuter in feeling, that he may decide with impartiality. 2.In grammar, of neither gender; an epithet given to nouns that are neither masculine nor feminine; primarily to nouns which express neither sex. – noun – 1.A person that takes no part in a contest between two or more individuals or nations; a person who is either indifferent to the cause, or forbears to interfere. 2. A animal of neither sex, or incapable of propagation. The working bees are neuters. – verb – In grammar, a verb which expresses an action or state limited to the subject, and which is not followed by an object; as, I go; I sit; I am; I run; I walk. It is better denominated intransitive. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)
–=–
While neutrality is certainly a skill one learns in the practice of the sciences and other arts as a means to an end, this type of cultural neutrality in language can only lead to causality instead of choice, and silence as consent instead of personal or public discourse. It means that the word “no” becomes useless and unacceptable, for all issues are pre-voted as “yes.” It means privacy and personal, self-determination is dead.
And so when Voltaire uses this address of Him (a capitonym) with regards to the word and meaning of “God,” it caries a specific meaning not of a male figure but of the masculine qualities of supremacy or sovereignty of God, as the masculine nature of strength, power, and authority.
So what happens if suddenly everything we discuss, every word we use both politically and socially, is suddenly made to be neuter in gender?
What happens to the meaning and power of our words if they are stripped of any masculine or famine qualities?
Have you taken a look at our society lately?
–=–
–=–
Will a book get upset if I don’t refer to it as Neuter Gender, meaning it is neither active or passive? Will a lamp refuse to illuminate my room because I put a femininely appealing lampshade upon its masculine body? Will an all girls college be so neutered so as to accept a student (a common gender title of legal/false persona) that only pretends to be a girl by pronoun? Nowadays, yes. Because the very foundation of gender in not only language but in True science (the study of Nature) and its deep importance is being abashedly lost to this extreme counter-culture society. Gender has somehow become politically incorrect! In fact, eventually there will be no “all-girl”or “all-boy” schools or clubs, simply because the words (pronouns) boy and girl will be illegal to use. They’ll be biased.
I wonder if Mother’s and Father’s day will be neutralized? Perhaps we can just call them as one parents day and bring them both gender neutral gifts. And that’s good news for guys, because it will then be illegal for a woman to state that she can do something a man can’t do! Brilliant. No more nagging about labor pains when we agonize over a sprained ankle. Men can now claim neuter anti-bias and be done with that nagging old neuter neutral life partner whose breasts are somehow no longer able to be referred to in the gender feminine.
Ironically, it is the ability to think with clarity and specifically neutrality that is being obfuscated. Spock would not be able to speak logically ever again, for he would not be able by sanction of law to speak grammatical truth in gender. Even the great Vulcan would be cowed by so-called anti-biased, illogical education, a virtual ethnic cleansing of any reasonable discourse from society.
Voltaire, the Bible, and so many other sources use the intentionally masculine word He to describe “God.” Throughout the history of poetic, romantic language arts this type of metaphoric speech as a use of gender description was a perfectly executable and beautifully eloquated art of communication. These old languages, even today, would be useless without this built in engendering of role.
Today, it is becoming irrationally offensive to utilize such terms of gender in our grammar-based rhetoric and discourse, though there is absolutely no precedent or reasoning behind such foolishness. This boils down to a population standing in utter idiocracy, a reality show gone horribly wrong. That such an ancient, mature form of gender-biased terminology should be demonized merely because the general population cannot anymore comprehend the difference between the use of such words with utter neutrality and without some perceived personal attack on a whole race or sex is certainly the sign of any semblance of Natural or political liberty and justice.
And yet, in our very legalistic law we find…
HE – Properly a pronoun of the masculine gender, but commonly construed in statutes to include both sexes as well as corporations.May be read “they.” (Black’s Law 4th)
We also find in US Code, Title 1, Section 1, that:
“…WORDS importing themasculine GENDER include the feminine as well…”
And so what does this battle against meaning do to the notion of sovereignty? Obviously sovereignty is a masculine gender word in its proper grammatical use. It literally cannot be grammatically feminine. And yet the New Age worship of the sacred feminine (including the Catholic Mary as the occult worship of Fatima) is today at hand, not as the desire for the perfection of balance intended by the self-evident neutrality of gender specificity, but as a complete destruction and emasculation of all masculine concepts, both in males and females. True freedom is a masculine concept, requiring self-responsibility and purposeful adherence to God’s Law of Nature. One cannot be Truly free and also be in a feminine (subjective) position. This has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation or genetics, for indeed the female partakes in the masculine traits of most words as well, because they had nothing to do with her sexuality. What is an object and what is a subject to another object is self-evident in most cases. But to utterly mix up and destroy the ability to communicate in such obvious terms, which we call as political correctness, means that we can no longer express the very underlying tenets and ideals of True freedom and liberty under God.
In other words, our vigor, or at least the ability to express it civilly, is being taken away from us one word at a time.
VIGOROUSNESS – noun – The quality of being vigorous or possessed of active strength. [Vigor and all its derivatives imply active strength, or the power of action and exertion, in distinction from passive strength, or strength to endure.]
PASSIVE – adjective – [Latin passivus, from passus, patior, to suffer.] 1. Suffering; not acting, receiving or capable of receiving impressions from external agents. We were passive spectators, not actors in the scene. The mind is wholly passive in the reception of all its simple ideas. God is not in any respect passive. 2.Unresisting; not opposing; receiving or suffering without resistance; as passive obedience; passive submission to the laws. Passive verb, in grammar,is a verb which expresses passion, or the effect of an action of some agent; as in Latin doceor, I am taught; in English, she is loved and admired by her friends; he is assailed by slander. Passive obedience, as used by writers on government, denotes not only quiet unresting submission to power, but implies the denial of the right of resistance, or the recognition of the duty to submit in all cases to the existing government. Passive prayer, among mystic divines, is suspension of the activity of the soul or intellectual faculties, the soul remaining quiet and yielding only to the impulses of grace. Passive commerce, trade in which the productions of a country are carried by foreigners in their own (ship) bottoms. [See Active commerce.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)
–=–
In this sense, we can understand more clearly the role of being a patient to the medical industry, which is responsible for over one-third of deaths in the United States (see statistics on iatrogenic death by doctors). Yes, doctors kill one-third of those who die from disease, behind only cancer and heart disease, both of which being mainstream news to also be doctor and vaccine-related diseases. This vigorous death toll is a result of the patient/doctor or agent/principal relationship, the passive vs the vigorous.
We are becoming not active participants in government, but unwitting patients passively obeying the worst kind of bureaucracy in law.
PATIENT –adjective – pa’shent. [Latin patient.] 1.Having the quality ofenduring evils without murmuring or fretfulness;sustaining afflictions of body or mind with fortitude, calmness or christian submission to the divine will; as a patient person, or a person of patient temper. It is followed by of before the evil endured; as patient of labor or pain; patient of heat or cold. 2.Not easily provoked; calm under the sufferance of injuries or offenses;not revengeful. Be patient towards all men. 1 Thessalonians 5:14. 3.Persevering;constant in pursuit or exertion; calmly diligent. Whatever I have done is due to patient thought. 4. Not hasty; not over eager or impetuous; waiting or expecting with calmness or without discontent. Not patient to expect the turns of fate. –noun – A person or thing that received impressions from external agents; he or that which is passively affected. Malice is a passion so impetuous and precipitate, that it often involves the agent and the patient. 1.A person diseased or suffering bodily indisposition. It is used in relation to the physician; as, the physician visits his patient morning and evening. 2. It is sometimes used absolutely for a sick person.It is wonderful to observe how inapprehensive these patients are of their disease. – verb intransitive – To compose one’s self. [Not used.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)
–=–
The endurance shown today as the passive aggressiveness towards this browbeating of the masculinity of all things, of all the masculine qualities of men, male and female, both in health and in communication, is staggering to say the least. We are Truly entering into the Brave New World model.
For the purposes of keeping our whits about us as we enter into this adversarial age of deception and as otherwise strong men fall all around us into a state of passive ridiculousness, I have included here some lessons on gender and its correct use in grammar. While this may seem basic for some, for others it is a new exploration, and at least it might help us to recognize exactly what is being attempted to be stripped away from our collective cognizance in order to place us into a continuous state of dissonant, dissociative behavior towards one another and most importantly to the general authority figures of church and state. Do not take this for granted, my friends, for this is as evil as evil plans get.
–=–
–=–
“Nature: Universal Grammar”
“Universal Grammar is a theory proposed by Chomsky that claims children have the ability to learn any language. This is due to what he calls Universal Grammar. He proposes that their is a natural ability in the mind of every human that allows them to learn, and that is how language is further developed. Being born with every linguistic tool that one would need, gives humans the ability to learn language essentially on their own.”
–=–
“Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement”
“The behaviorist theory is when negative and positive reinforcements are used to gain a desired result. This is often used in classrooms in which teachers use consequences or rewards to motivate a student to succeed. Skinner believed that this nurture style behavior was the reason for language development in children. His claims were that children are rewarded for correct use of language, and either punished or no action at all for incorrect use of language. Children weren’t actually learning language,but instead they were learning about rewards and consequences through the behaviorists theory.”
In conclusion, it wasn’t so much that B.F. Skinner was correct by default, but that when reason, logic, God’s Nature and Law, and any Natural inclinations towards self-government and self-determination are stripped away from the equation, from the consciousness, then and only then may the engineering of social conditioning, association, imitation, and reinforcement destroy our mind’s natural, inherant tendencies through the introduction of what amounts to a giant, public, social experiment in a laboratory setting, a combination of the media, public education, and the entertainment industries all working hand in hand to adversarially nurture us all away from our very own nature. In other words, Nature will take its course unless something unnatural is purposefully introduced as a stumbling block so that we are re-purposed as human capital. We are like rats being experimented on in completely unnatural settings and thus producing completely unnatural results, and so it is impossible to fulfill our purpose according to our inherent nature. The state and its propaganda matrix has hold of us. And yet its only chains are the words (rhetoric) it causes us to speak against our very own interests and nature.
Note here that you will not hear such a discourse on gender neutralization in the mainstream media. Their job is not to solve the issue but to present what appears to be a hopeless battle against this onslaught of strangeness. By presenting interviews with perverted and demoralizing guests and commentators from various special interest organizations, we are not meant to be informed but utterly confused. We are meant to feel helpless, passive, and without hope. We are meant to stop participating, to stop being active (masculine) in our protests and oppositions. We are meant to become like putty in the hands of these social engineers, either trapped in our own homes in front of our televisions and radios hopelessly watching it all go to shit, or throwing away our televisions and other connections to all of this so as to become the ultimate in passive aggressive slaves, pretending it will all go away while suffering all the evils that result in such complacency and obedience to absurdity.
And on that note, I can only imagine that Voltaire must be rolling in his grave.
Author’s note: this is a great companion piece to the culmination of my life’s work — a discourse on the language arts, as the legal law vs. the Natural Law, which is free to download at StrawmanStory.info. Please spread this article and my book freely with all who may seek answers. Thank you…
.
–Clint > Richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, August 18, 2017
“Geoengineering’ is a new term, still seeking a definition. It seems to imply something global, intentional, and unnatural…”
–Thomas Schelling, 1996
–
–=–
–
“But there are at least 26 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. These include disruption of the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people; ozone depletion; no more blue skies; reduction of solar power; and rapid global warming if it stops.”
–Alan Robock, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences,
Rutgers University, 2013
–
–=– A Crash Course:
Geo-Engineering 101 –=–
–
If you are like me, you’ve given up pointing to the unnatural lines in the sky in a futile effort to try and convince people about the reality of Geo-Engineering, also commonly but incorrectly called “chemtrails”. The permanent haze that inhabits and incubates our horizons seems somehow perfectly natural to most people. Go figure…
Through officially sourced grammar and logic, I continuously try and present different reasonable ways to show that this phenomenon of weather and climate manipulation and engineering through pseudo-science is happening right under- er, over everyone on Earth’s collective noses. Obviously, the strangeness of visibly organized pollution in the sky is not enough. After all, straight lines don’t happen in nature, or so I’ve heard. X’s, hexagrams, and pentagrams, therefore, should be a real eye-opener considering they are being written overtly for all to see.
And so to supplement the obvious spraying of our skies, I’ve presented within several research articles the legal laws regulating Geo-Engineering both nationally and internationally. I’ve dug up and presented government announcements of weather modification and their results around the globe. I’ve linked, copied, and pasted the various international treaties and white papers, military weather weaponization projects and plans to control the weather, and even the very public notices in newspapers from across the world stating clearly the corporate intent to get permission and license from government to create “Weather Modification” through Geo-Engineering.
And so I continuously ask myself… What else can I possibly present as proof of this ultimately destructive death-sentence to man and nature to the ultimate skeptics and useful innocents out there?
Today, as I watched yet another presentation by Dane Wigington of “GeoEngineering Watch” (geoengineeringwatch.com), a strange thought occurred to me… How can there be so many experts, scientists, and lecturers within this now open field of Geo-Engineering? Who exactly made them the official “experts” on modifying the weather? Where did they get their credentials? And where did they earn their masters and PhD of climate change and environmental engineering theory?
In other words, I thought… Is it possible that colleges actually offer courses and even specialized degrees in “Geo-Engineering”?
The answer was quite shocking, and is yet another trophy of the true idiocy of mankind, that something so real and taking place right over our collective heads should be treated as just crazy nonsense and mere “conspiracy theory”.
But as I was searching for and finding a multitude of accredited college courses and degrees in “Geo-Engineering”, something much more sophisticated and sinister began to take form. I started to notice the overwhelming push and descriptions of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development ideals being published along side of these Geo-Engineering courses. The effects of “climate change” and both its effect and causality on society as a social medium for career oriented jobs in Agenda 21 became the obvious and main interconnected theme. And it is now
apparent to me that the altering of the climate through many different forms of Geo-Engineering in the air, within the ocean, upon and beneath the land, and even within the societal and social/urban realm and its impact and control of “sustainable”, “green”, “smart” population centers due to said environmental engineering is now becoming a most sought after career choice in both the public and private sectors.
Apparently, the process of changing the climate through Geo-Engineering requires a diverse team of players, thinkers, designers, monitors, grunts, and data collection specialists. And as it turns out, many of these career fields can be entered into on different levels with either an Associates, Bachelors, Masters, or PHD in “Geo-Engineering”.
As I thought critically about our current generations of children and newly young adults, all of whom have grown up with a personal computer and an internet-linked cell-phone as their constant companions and guide – in a world where video games and media have dominated over nature and reality – we now have entire generations that actually believe with perfect reason in the concept that completely altering and disrupting the climate and designing the sustainable urban centers and green livelihoods of all people in controlled environments is a perfectly reasonable career choice. In short, nerds are in the process of taking over everything, using their models and projections to create a computer-controlled weather system while using the actual ecosystem and atmosphere as their no-2nd-chance testing ground. True empathy and appreciation of the laws of nature has been removed. And somehow in its place a false sense of god-complex has taken over the psyche of our aspiring youth, who believe that altering nature and creating new genetically modified life to suit these man-made “engineered” changes to the environment and to nature’s cycle of life itself is perfectly acceptable and moral behavior. Amazingly, as we will read, Geo-Engineering is being sold as something these freshly and ethically lobotomized young minds can do as a career to save the world, save the population, and be hero’s outside of the virtual video game realm.
It’s truly a nerd’s wet dream. I know, for I grew up in the first-nerd generation with my Commodore 64, the original Pong and Atari cartridge-game systems, and pre-clone IBM personal computers that could barely animate stick figures let alone model all life on the planet. And after watching and personally managing the evolution of gaming and media while working 7 years in the development process as a sound designer and engineer, I shutter to think of where my own state of reality and empathy would be today had I been indoctrinated in modern technology – if I would have been born too late to see the evolution of this digital process and instead would have been born smack in the middle of its “miracle” to be considered second nature.
I have compiled the following unbelievable collection of educational opportunities in the field of Geo-Engineering, so that the next time someone looks at you like your a nutter when you point to the lines in the sky, you can show them the reality of their own part in playing the fool…
—=– GradSchools.com –=–
GradSchools.com explains and defines “GeoEngineering” and lists many top universities offering “sustainable” courses in this field, and then amazingly lists dozens and dozens of acredited colleges that offer courses in environmental engineering:
GeoEngineering Graduate Programs
GeoEngineering is also known as environmental engineering; it refers to the process of intervening in the earth’s climate system for the purpose of mitigating climate change. It encompasses two primary practices: carbon dioxide removal andsolar radiation management.
GeoEngineering is a relatively new field. Graduate programs that may involve geoengineering include ocean technology, civil and environmental engineering, geological engineering, aerospace engineering, hydrology and GPS technology. Both campus based and online GeoEngineering graduate schools exist.
GeoEngineering Graduate Programs and Curriculum
Interested students can explore geoengineering in the context of disciplines ranging from environmental engineering to ocean technology. Students pursuing graduate degrees in these areas may take classes ranging from earthquake engineeringto dynamics of ocean structures.
The objective of the Energy, Civil Infrastructure and Climate (ECIC) program is to educate a cadre of professionals who will be able to analyze from engineering, environmental, economic, and management perspectives complex problems such as energy efficiency of buildings, environmentally informed design of transportation systems, embodied energy of construction materials, electricity from renewable sources, and biofuels, and address such overarching societal problems as mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation of infrastructure to a changing climate. The ECIC program also promotes research at the intersection of energy, infrastructure and climate science…
— Energy, climate, and infrastructure systems are closely tied together, and these connections manifest in many forms. Our society cannot function without energy and infrastructure systems. Energy systems with the lowest possible greenhouse gas footprint are a key to mitigating climate change. Civil infrastructure systems are a backbone of society, and they are also major users of energy that needs to be reduced for a more sustainable development.
Management of environmental resources to protect human health and the systems that support life is one biggest challenges facing modern society. In recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of these challenges, UC Berkeley’s Environmental Engineering Program provides students with training needed to address current and future environmental issues.
Geoengineering is an interdisciplinary program that offers excellent opportunities for students with background in Engineering and Earth Sciences who are interested in all aspects of soil and rock mass characterization, development of advanced simulation techniques, performance of earth structures and underground space, and identification and mitigation of natural hazards.
…Master of science in Earth resources engineering (M.S.-E.R.E.) graduates are specially qualified to work for engineering, financial, and operating companies engaged in mineral processing ventures, the environmental industry, environmental groups of in all industries, and for city, state, and federal agencies responsible for the environment and energy/resource conservation. At the present time, the U.S. environmental industry comprises nearly 30,000 big and small businesses with total revenues over $150 billion. Sustainable development and environmental quality has become a top priority of industry and government in the U.S. and many other nations.
Water Resources and Climate Risks
Water Resources and Climate Risks focuses on the movement, availability, and quality of water throughout the Earth, on scales ranging from individual rivers and watersheds to the entire globe. Providing this valuable resource for society is the overarching goal, and the risks posed by climate variability, extremes, and change is an important and inherent part of all research projects. Specific projects range from the management of available supplies to forecasting future availability to underlying scientific mechanisms, and span a number of disciplines such as hydrology, hydroclimatology, water resources engineering, atmospheric dynamics, and land-atmosphere interaction…
A complementary degree (master of arts in climate and society) is available through Columbia University for students who are more directly interested in social or planning aspects of climate impacts, and are not quantitatively oriented.
So who monitors all of this Geo-Engineering currently taking place? After all, someone needs to keep track of the changes in the Earth’s atmosphere from all that Geo-Engineering spraying. Well, first you need to go to college to learn all of this kind of stuff:
The Center for Integrated Earth System Science (CIESS) is a cooperative effort between the Jackson School of Geosciences and the Cockrell School of Engineering. The center fosters collaborative study of Earth as a coupled system with focus on land, atmosphere, water, environment, and society.
The center integrates the university’s strengths in earth system modeling, observing and monitoring, computational science and engineering, supercomputing, air resources engineering, hydrology and water resources, sedimentology and depositional processes, energy/policy, outreach/communications, and other fields.
The Center for Integrated Earth System Science (CIESS) seeks a deeper understanding of the physical chemical, biological and human interactions that determine the past, present and future states of Earth.
CIESS places a strong emphasis on the societal impacts of research in earth system science and provides a fundamental basis for understanding the world in which we live and seek sustainability.
CIESS views Earth in a holistic way, linking the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, cryosphere, and solid earth as a coupled system. CIESS uses powerful methodologies such as satellite remote sensing and supercomputing simulations which are now profoundly changing research in earth system science.
Specifically, the goal of CIESS is to answer a wide variety of earth science questions including:
How do Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere interact on all time and space scales?
How can we use in situ measurements, global satellite observations, proxy data, and computational analysis to describe and understand Earth’s dynamic system?
What has been the impact of human activity on Earth?
What is the future of our environment under climate change, land use change, and water use change?
How accurate are climate system models in providing seamless predictions at daily, seasonal, decadal or centennial timescales? Can we improve these predictions?
How can we reduce modeling uncertainties and make reliable predictions of extreme events at regional scales? How can we make rational decisions under uncertainties in order to mitigate, prevent, plan for or adapt to the negative potential impacts of global change? How can we apply the lessons learned from climate system models to other earth sciences and engineering?
–=– Harvard University: Center For The Environment –=–
Yes, even the most prestigious of schools are in on the game.
ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP
Solar geoengineering is the concept of deliberately cooling the Earth by reflecting a small amount of inbound sunlight back into space. It is the only currently known method for reducing temperatures in the short term (years to decades), and therefore has the potential to reduce many of the worst impacts of global warming. But what would be the side effects, both physical and socio-political? How would it work and who gets to decide if it is deployed? Does humanity have the wisdom and the institutions to govern the development of such a powerful technology in this messy, multi-polar world?
This seminar series, held jointly by the Harvard University Center for the Environment (HUCE) and MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, will explore the science, technology, governance and ethics of solar geoengineering. In bringing together international experts, participants will learn some of the greatest challenges and hear opinions on how this technology could and should be managed.
A recent seminar just took place, for example, explaining the already conducted Geo-Engineering of our planet (click on link):
There is a growing number of publicly funded geoengineering research programs around the world and this document is the first attempt to draw together the basic information on all of them in one place. It will update as new information becomes available. If it is missing any program information or there are any errors please contact andrew_parker@hks.harvard.edu or david_keith@harvard.edu.
–=– University Of Oxford Geoengineering Programme –=-
–
At the University of Oxford, we can see that a program already exists to study the already existing effects of Geo-Engineering!
What is Geoengineering?
Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change.
There is wide range of proposed geoengineering techniques. Generally, these can be grouped into two categories:
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or Solar Geoengineering
SRM techniques aim to reflect a small proportion of the Sun’s energy back into space, counteracting the temperature rise caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which absorb energy and raise temperatures. Some proposed techniques include:
Albedo enhancement. Increasing the reflectiveness of clouds or the land surface so that more of the Sun’s heat is reflected back into space.
Space reflectors. Blocking a small proportion of sunlight before it reaches the Earth.
Stratospheric aerosols. Introducing small, reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect some sunlight before it reaches the surface of the Earth.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Carbon Geoengineering
CDR techniques aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, directly countering the increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. These techniques would have to be implemented on a global scale to have a significant impact on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Some proposed techniques include:
Afforestation. Engaging in a global-scale tree planting effort.
Biochar. ‘Charring’ biomass and burying it so that its carbon is locked up in the soil.
Bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration. Growing biomass, burning it to create energy and capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide created in the process.
Ambient Air Capture. Building large machines that can remove carbon dioxide directly from ambient air and store it elsewhere.
Ocean Fertilisation. Adding nutrients to the ocean in selected locations to increase primary production which draws down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Enhanced Weathering. Exposing large quantities of minerals that will react with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and storing the resulting compound in the ocean or soil.
Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement. Grinding up, dispersing, and dissolving rocks such as limestone, silicates, or calcium hydroxide in the ocean to increase its ability to store carbon and directly ameliorate ocean acidification.
————-
About Us
The Oxford Geoengineering Programme was founded in 2010 as an initiative of the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford.
Geoengineering – the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change – is a contentious subject and rightly so.
The Oxford Geoengineering Programme seeks to engage with society about the issues associated with geoengineering and conduct research into some of the proposed techniques. The programme does not advocate implementing geoengineering, but it does advocate conducting research into the social, ethical and technical aspects of geoengineering. This research must be conducted in a transparent and socially informed manner.
The University of Oxford is involved in three major projects on geoengineering funded by the UK Research Councils.
They are: The Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) in partnership with The University of Leeds, Cardiff University, Lancaster University, University of Bristol, University of East Anglia, The Tyndall Centre and the UK Met Office; Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) in partnership with The University of Bristol and Cambridge University; and Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG), a recently announced Oxford-led project in partnership with The University of Sussex and University College London which will examine the governance and ethics of geoengineering.
The SPICE project – Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering
The SPICE project will investigate the effectiveness of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) using stratospheric particles. It addresses the three grand challenges in solar radiation management: 1. How much, of what, needs to be injected where into the atmosphere to effectively and safely manage the climate system? 2. How do we deliver it there? 3. What are the likely impacts? These questions are addressed through 3 coordinated and inter-linked work packages which are summarized here and described in detail in section 3.
CUED is responsible for the Delivery systems (WP2):
WP2 Particles are to be injected into the stratosphere at heights upwards of 10km (mid-latitude) and 18km (equatorial). A range of delivery systems have at various times been proposed including batch delivery by aircraft, balloons or ballistics and steady-state delivery by thermal plumes, or from a fixed tower or pipe supported by a balloon. The rate required for global climate modification is upward of 1Mte p.a. and at this rate the delivery costs for batch methods are estimated to be well above £1bn p.a. but an order of magnitude less than 1/10 of this for the pipe delivery method.
WP2.0: Before SPICE begins a process to evaluate alternative delivery systems will take place so that WP2 can begin its primary tasks without delay. Delivery systems identified so far include aircraft, weather balloons, ballistics, towers, tethered balloons or dirigibles and tethered jet engine platforms. For each the preliminary investigation will outline engineering, development, capital and operating costs and timescales, environmental and social impact…
–=– Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) –=–
–
About PAOC
PAOC oversees a broad program of education and research in atmospheric, oceanic, and climate sciences. We are engaged in some of the most intellectually challenging and important problems in science, such as the physics of hurricanes, and the dynamics of ice ages. PAOC is part of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT and includes members from other MIT departments and from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The phenomena under study involve a large array of scientific disciplines – geophysics, geochemistry, physical and chemical oceanography, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, and planetary science. The program carries out research and gives instruction in all of these principal areas. Perhaps more than any other program in the world, PAOC offers its students unique opportunities for interdisciplinary study and research. In all areas we emphasize a combination of theoretical, observational and modeling approaches.
Contact with all of these institutions is maintained through seminars and symposia. Moreover students can formally take subjects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Harvard University. The research and educational programs of PAOC also benefit from the larger intellectual milieu provided by MIT with its strengths in science and engineering. In research there are no departmental boundaries and we collaborate freely across discipline. PAOC is also involved in undergraduate education within the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
To give you an example of the learning seminars and symposia mentioned, one of PAOC’s senior research scientists has some interesting lectures, which are broadcast to many colleges around the world. These type of video lectures are commonplace in Geo-Engineering courses.
Name – Chien Wang
Title – Senior Research Scientist
Education – Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, 1992, State University of New York (Albany, New York)
Bio and Interests – Physics and Chemistry of Aerosols and Clouds • Tropospheric Chemistry • Aerosol-Climate and Chemistry-Climate Interactions
Dr. Wang’s recent researches include cloud dynamics and microphysics, interaction between cloud-scale and large-scale processes, aerosol-cloud-precipitaion connection, and atmospheric chemistry. He has developed a three-dimensional modeling system to simulate the dynamical, microphysical, and chemical processes of clouds, especially of deep convective clouds. He is also working on a global-scale chemistry and climate model and use this model to study the sensitivity of climate change to atmospheric chemical processes. Another research focus of Dr. Wang and his group is to understand the role of aerosols in climate system. He and his group have developed an interactive aerosol-climate model and used this model, aided by observational and retrieval data, to study the climate impacts of anthropogenic absorbing aerosols particularly on critical precipitation systems such as the monsoons. They are also trying to understand how aerosols emitted from biomass burning can affect regional and global climate.
Dr. Wang’s research interests include cloud dynamics and microphysics, interactions between cloud-scale and large-scale processes, and atmospheric chemistry. He has developed a three-dimensional modeling system to simulate the dynamical, microphysical, and chemical processes of clouds, especially of deep convective clouds. He is also working on a global-scale interactive chemistry and climate model and using this model to study the sensitivity of climate change to atmospheric chemical processes.
MIT also hosts the “Laboratory For Aviation And The Environment“, in association with Harvard University.
And of course the Civil and environmental Engineering degree program is listed as follows, followed by a detailed listing of each course in the graduate program:
The mission of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) is to provide human services in a sustainable way, balancing society’s need for long-term infrastructure with environmental health. This positions CEE to play an essential role in solving some of the most pressing problems facing humanity, including concerns about energy and the environment.
Research domains
Research in CEE falls into six overlapping, cross-disciplinary focus areas:
Smarter Cities
Ecosystems
Coastal Zone
Water and Energy Resources
Chemicals in the Environment
Materials
Undergraduate Education
We offer two accredited majors, in civil engineering (1C) and in environmental engineering science (1E), as well as a flexible unaccredited program (1A). The core curriculum introduces principles of earth systems and sustainability, provides a grounding in the fundamentals of solid and fluid mechanics, and incorporates project-based labs that teach the processes and skills involved in planning, design and construction. The curriculum provides students with both a rigorous foundation in theory and the practical, hands-on experience they need to succeed in the field.
Graduate Education
At the graduate level, CEE runs two very successful professional engineering programs, the Master of Engineering and the interdepartmental Master of Science in Transportation. Both attract excellent applicants from leading U.S. and international universities. These programs provide a critical link between the department and companies and governmental agencies concerned with the environment, transportation and infrastructure. About one-third of our doctoral graduates go on to accept faculty positions, making our training of doctoral candidates in a wide range of research areas a point of pride. Our scholars regularly produce high-quality, impactful research and go on to shape the intellectual future of the field.
In this amazing admission by Joyce of the University of Michigan, she lectures about the ALREADY GEO-ENGINEERED ATMOSPHERE and how it is already protecting us from global warming!!!
“For cloud seeding – we are already doing that. We have satellite images of ship-tracks available that tell us that in fact the emissions from the ships brighten the clouds in the little lines you see (chemtrails) and change the radius of the particles in the clouds. So we’re already doing that.”
“We also know that the aerosols that we are currently emitting are already protecting us from global warming to a certain extent
Judy Layzer, from MIT, also lectures on making the choice to Geo-Engineer the planet and the politics of Geo-Engineering, stating that those against Geo-Engineering are irrational only after first stating that she “knows very little about Geo-Engeneering”:
The Washington Geoengineering Consortium is a collaboration between a set of academics from Johns Hopkins University and American University in Washington, DC. We are concerned with the social, political, and legal implications of geoengineering technologies. Our public outreach efforts are guided by the observation that, to date, the conversation about geoengineering’s development, deployment, and implications has been confined to a relatively narrow set of voices. Our goal is to generate space for perspectives from civil society actors and the wider public, to produce a heightened level of engagement around issues of justice, agency, and inclusion.
In a recent closed-door meeting, we learn that the true nature of Non-Governmental Organizations is to “act” like concerned citizens and then to convince real citizens on how to buy Geo-Engineering. In other words, NGO’s act as the voice of the public while selling the product of Geo-Engineering to the public as its voice:
Civil Society Meeting Report
On November 4, 2013, the Washington Geoengineering Consortium organized a meeting for civil societyactors based in Washington DC.
The meeting brought together around 40 people from major environmental, development, and justice NGOs, to consider the challenges and opportunities presented by geoengineering technologies. There was much rich conversation throughout the day…
Executive Summary
On November 4, 2013, the WGC hosted a closed-door meeting on geoengineering for Washington,DC-based civil society actors. More than 40 individuals registered to attend, from 30 different organizations…
During the first breakout session, participants were invited to look at the potential benefits and risks for people and the climate of various geoengineering proposals, and began to consider the possible contours of civil society engagement. The second session focused more particularly on questions of ethics, justice, governance, and of framing.
Risks and Benefits of Civil Society Engagement
Many argued that the present reluctance of civil society actors to engage with the geoengineering conversation must be overcome. If the world gets to the point of having to choose between climate disaster or geoengineering, politicians are almost certain, it was suggested, to choose geoengineering. This understanding of the political dynamics driving the world toward deployment of geoengineering technologies suggests a need for urgent and more far-reaching civil society attention.
How Should Civil Society Actors Frame Geoengineering?
Some suggested that the dominant framing for geoengineering now is as a “solution” to climate change. Few scientists would make such a claim, but the general public may still construe the promise of geoengineering as “this will make climate change go away and, so, we don’t have to change our behaviors.” A few suggested that, to shift the conversation in productive ways, geoengineering should be characterized publicly as a “terrible choice.” Geoengineering, in other words, can be viewed by civil society organizations as a strategic opening, as a way to bring home the horrors of climate change to policymakers and the public.
Perhaps the slimiest of all careers in the field of Geo-Engineering, the political selling of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development through the perceived threat of a global catastrophe takes the cake. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) are charged with impersonating the will and concern of the public, literally acting as socially responsible representatives of the public while in reality just posing as salesmen and propagandists for the Agenda 21 and environmental engineering industrial complex. These actors are the backbone of corporate and government propaganda delivery to the dumbed-down masses – a false-consensus gathering machine of no equal, that nullifies the voice of the actual public and voters. Here we see that though few scientists would make the claim that Geo-Engineering is an actual solution to the problem, the job of the NGO is to act as if the opposite is true by pitching and selling the lie if that’s what the consortium concludes is needed, or to spin the oposite theory as a threat to force people to accept Agenda 21/Sustainable and smart growth lifestyles. This is called “framing” the propaganda.
–=– Conclusion –=–
I’m not sure what else needs to be said here. I’m not sure how any sane and rational person can possibly still consider Geo-Engineering merely a theory or that the photos of persistent contrails utilized by the above university professors to illustrate Geo-Engineering practices can be anything else but “chemtrails” used for research in atmospheric research, as they themselves claim.
But then again… I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The interconnectedness of Agenda 21 and the supposed climate change is becoming obvious, and this external threat of climate seems to be yet another false flag creation of think-tanks that is being utilized to scare the population of earth into excepting Agenda 21 in totality in order to avert and avoid the supposed “global catastrophe” concluded by the elite nerd class.
It should also be very concerning to the reader that the university system around the globe is being utilized as the main venue for the justification and funding of Geo-Engineering and Sustainable Development. This poisoning of our young minds will directly effect your future and that of your future generations unless this madness is nipped in the butt and the influence of corporate, governmental, and non-governmental organizations is removed from school curriculum and funding.
This field extends to every facet of environmental and geological tracking and engineering. One should no longer limit their purview of Geo-Engineering as just lines in the sky that spread out to form “urban haze”. It requires a massive network of everything from annalists and engineers to secretaries and computer input specialists, and involves land, sea, air, social society, and even space.
Whether Geo-Engineering is a scare-tactic or a truly necessary tool to save the planet, I have to conclude that by their own comments and admissions of not knowing whether or not this thing will even work or whether it will itself kill all life on the planet and rip a hole in the ozone, I can safely say that you who are reading this should likely be of the opinion by now that this bunch of assholes listed above should not be given the controls to the atmosphere, climate, and natural ecosystem of planet Earth.
For God’s sake and for that of your children, we must not let this revenge of the nerds continue to take place.
Government will not protect you, because it loves the idea, and is inhabited by the same nerds!
Fight this with your life, for that is all you have left.
All life on Earth is literally in the balance…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, May 11th, 2014
As I entered the line for the security and “screening” area of the Salt Lake City Airport on April 27th, 2013, I decided that it was time to stand up for my natural rights as a lawful man. I decided not to offer my willing consent that any TSA officer might presume as to my willingness or legal duty to be either irradiated in a full-body scanner or be patted down by any agent of government or its security guards (police) without first being shown probable cause or reasonable suspicion that I have committed a regulated commercial or criminal act, and to show any law that gave that officer or security guard authority to do so despite my lack of voluntary consent.
I arrived at the Salt Lake City airport almost two hours early, surprised to find the “security checkpoint” line almost empty of citizens eagerly waiting for their chance to be scanned and touched inappropriately by these TSA “agents” – employees of a government corporation. Whereas in my previous flying experiences I would refuse the full-body scanner but give my unwilling but seemingly necessary consent to a full body pat down just so that I could catch my flight on time, on this day I felt that it was time to make a stand for my own rights and that of others traveling this supposedly free land with the right to the uninhibited freedom of “travel.” Ironically, the very people in that line that I was trying to help see the truth of our collective tyrannical disposition turned out to be among my staunchest detractors! And I wondered what it must have felt like to be Rosa Parks on the back of that bus, refusing to give up her seat and sitting for her own rights and for that of all people, not just her own color. How difficult must it have been for her to listen to the jeering and insults around her?
I was soon to find out…
As I approached the first TSA agent after stepping through the line of ropes, a pleasant gentleman in a Transportation Security Agency (TSA) uniform was sitting at a podium and checking “driver’s licenses” as identification to match names on tickets. I felt comfortable and assured that the presentment of a license to drive a vehicle in commerce had nothing to do with consenting to the TSA and its disgusting objectives or illegal searches, and so I did not object to this pointless act as I felt it was not unreasonable to identify myself. After all, I wasn’t driving a commercial vehicle or utilizing any part of the “Motor Vehicle Code” in this traveling adventure in the sky, so what harm could it cause to show this unrelated “license” to commercially “drive” even though I was not doing so?
Without harm or delay, I was handed back my “Driver’s License” and boarding pass with verification of TSA identification for screening purposes, and pointed to the next section.
As I waited in the quite short line of people, I felt confident in my self and that I possess the natural right not to be detained, irradiated, or felt up regardless of what some central government corporation creates within its rules, codes, and regulations. For a natural right is just that – the right to not have unlawful acts committed against you, which creates a natural duty in other men and women to honor that right as they would wish it to be honored back at them. Government/political rights are of course the exact opposite of natural rights, in that your political rights include having such abuses, extortion, punishments, pains, taxes, imprisonment, and in this case irradiation or molestation forced upon you. This is the price of a ticket to be a “citizen” acting in “commerce“.
I always refer people to TITLE 42, SECTION 1981 for a deep understanding of what a government granted political “right” actually is, for which most people have no clue. It states:
“Statement of equal rights”
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
This of course describes perfectly a “political right” – your right is to be harmed, punished, pained, taxed, and extorted from (exaction). These are the “equal rights” of all citizens! But I do not accept this as a true statement, and will always rebut the assumption that I consent to having political rights forced upon me which violate my natural rights. Put simply, natural rights are free, political rights are enslavement, and equal rights are political not natural.
Today at SLC International Airport in front of the TSA and Airport Police, I stood up for my natural rights – which cannot lawfully be superseded by any government-granted political rights without my consent.
Since I had no objection to the age-old practice of scanning the baggage of airline passengers, what is in my opinion a reasonable security precaution for the safety of the people (or at least for their perception of safety), I went ahead and placed my stuff on the conveyer belt to be checked. This was the last time my baggage was “allowed” to be in my position until this whole ordeal was over, though no law was ever presented or enumerated to allow such confiscation and detainment of my baggage despite my many demands to have that law presented.
The same metal detector that was used for decades now stood in front of me. Behind that apparatus and to the right was the “full-body scanner” that I was certainly opposed to and for which I felt was unreasonable and dangerous to my personal health and those around it. And so I proceeded towards the open (not roped off) and working (electronically charged and ready) metal detector (another thing I am not opposed to if reasonable and consensual). Before I could step through that typical metal detector I was so used to for so many decades of flying, I was told by a second TSA agent that I should walk into the full-body scanner instead. I calmly stated no thank you, I did not consent to that request and that I would gladly be “screened” by walking through the traditional metal detector. At this point, a third female in TSA uniform and badge told me to go ahead and walk to the scanner. Again I stated no, that I do not wish or consent to that action. Her response was to tell me (not ask) that oh, I was wanting to “opt out” of this action. I stated clearly that no, this was a legal term that I do not accept as a legal offer, and that I instead refuse to give my consent to being scanned by that machine but will gladly consent to walking through the metal detector for screening purposes.
With a confused look, she made a waving motion that I thought meant to walk through the metal detector. I proceeded to do so, but a forth male TSA agent was now blocking my path on the other side of that machine. I hesitated for a moment, allowing the agent to move out of my way, but instead he directed me to wait and hold where I was for a moment. He then yelled out that a “male pat-down” was required for yet another male TSA officer.
Next, the TSA agent blocking my way told me I must go through a full body pat-down in order to bypass the full-body scanner. I stated clearly that no, I do not consent to being patted down by anyone in any capacity – officially or otherwise – and that I was not acting in commerce but would be glad to go through the metal detector and be on my way. As I began to walk into the metal detector, this new agents’ hand went up and pressed against my chest, and he told me to stop where I was. Acting lawfully, I stopped and asked why I was being stopped. The answer was the same – that I must be screened properly – which meant that I must be patted down inappropriately.
Upon this order, I again stated that I did not consent to or accept this offer by the TSA. And I followed up on his demand by asking the lawful question, “Am I being detained”?
The answer from the male TSA agent was: “No, we are not detaining you sir”.
I looked at the female TSA agent to my right side, and she verified that I was not being detained.
I then asked the question: “Am I free to go?”
The male and female TSA agents both stated after a short pause that “Yes, I was free to go“.
I then proceeded to step through the traditional metal detector and passed through it without any detection of hidden objects, with no alarms sounding.
But for reasons unknown to me, the male TSA agent again tried to block me from walking through to get my luggage at the end of the conveyer belt located after the metal detector as was generally the normal screening procedure. His hand went up and touched my shoulder this time, and he instructed me that I must wait there for the proper agent to pat me down.
Confused, I asked again: “So wait. Am I being detained? Are you detaining me?”
The answer again came from the TSA agent: “No sir, I cannot detain you”.
And again I asked: “Then am I free to go to my plane?”
“Yes sir”, the male agent answered with uncertainty and nervousness, though his words inspired no confidence and did not match his body language or his actions. He stood back as I passed through the metal detector just enough for me to pass through, but still hindered my way slightly causing our right shoulders and arms to touch. He was short in stature, attempting to be authoritative but failing without cause.
Slow and methodical, I again attempted to proceed to where my bags were sitting post-screening (after already being duly x-rayed) and put my hand upon the handle of my largest piece of luggage. At this point the second agent stopped me, telling me loudly and with concern not to touch my bags and property because I had not been “properly screened”.
I stated that I just went through the metal detector and no alarm went off. You have scanned my bags and have no legal issues or reason to believe I am dangerous, so why are you stopping me from freely traveling?
It turned out that this agent was a supervisor, and he looked at me with a defeated yet confident look that I recognized from past encounters with men who think that they have the right to harm others rights and persons simply because they have a shiny badge and the misunderstood “authority“ to force their power‘s on others. He did not answer me right away, and I stood my ground with my hand on my baggage until he responded.
He stared at me with not quite a smile and with obvious annoyance, not knowing how to respond to or cleverly avoid my questions. His stance was firm and in a disposition as to be too close for comfort to my own face and his body was in my direct line of travel into the airport proper…
Again I asked: “What are you doing? Are you detaining me?”
And again the answer was “no“.
“Am I free to go?”
“No, not until you’ve been screened.”
I stated clearly then that I did not understand what was happening, and that I did not understand how, if I wasn’t being detained and had not broken any law, how can I not be free to go? This was very illogical and unreasonable, especially since no legal or lawful reason or code had yet to be given to me.
The same answer was given, that I had not gone through the proper screening process.
I stated again that I was certainly just as properly screened as I had been since I can remember whenever I had ever traveled as a kid – when I walked through the metal detector and had my bags scanned. I offered to repeat my previous action of walking through the metal detector if the TSA wished me to repeat this without any hesitation.
At some point during this process this TSA officer had depressed a button on some radio apparatus and requested a police officer and also a TSA manager who was in a suit and tie, not a standard uniform. I questioned his need for calling the airport police as I was not refusing any lawful order or causing any harm to any person or property. He apparently felt that he needed an authoritarian person in a more authoritarian uniform with a stun-gun and revolver to help him justify not answer my questions.
He told me that no, I must stay right there until a manager and the police arrive.
Of course I asked again: “Why? Are you detaining me for some reason?”
He stated that no, he cannot detain me (which I knew) while still blocking my way to travel, and that because I was refusing to go through the proper screening process I therefore could not enter the “sterile and secure environment of the airport”.
To this I reinforced the fact that I was not refusing to do anything or follow any lawful order, and that I would gladly subject myself to this so-called “proper screening process” if the TSA agent could simply show me the law that stated I must do so against my consent. I told him again that I was not acting as a person in commerce or any other activity that can be federally regulated, and that his own U.S. CODE specifically states that the travel of people cannot be restricted under the color of law. I then let him know that on this day I was lawfully traveling and again asked if I was free to go?
It was about this time when a female airport police officer showed up. She was younger with blonde hair. Quite pretty actually, but immediately unjustified in her confrontational language and posture…
The two TSA men, supported by the police officer, then told me that because I had come in contact with my bags before being properly screened (by touching my own property), the bags must be re-x-rayed before I can proceed into the airport. And yet apparently I could not be re-metal-detected myself. His next comment implied that I was refusing to be either irradiated or patted down, to which I answered:
“I am not refusing to do anything, I only ask that you show me the law that grants you authority to force me to go through a radiation emitting full-body scanner or to be patted down without my consent? Please show me the law that grants you any authority to force me to do so and I will gladly comply?”
He insisted that he was acting under Federal law, and that he was not about to go and retrieve the code of federal regulations for TSA to show me where that authority was derived. I was to take his word on this. And so I again re-stated that I am not refusing any order, and was simply waiting for any law or lawful code to be revealed and verified to me before I did something against my good conscious and informed consent against my natural rights.
He guffawed, and that’s when the people in line behind me started to yell obscenities. Their disgusted words were not directed at these unlawful acts of the TSA, but rather surprisingly at me for holding up the line. I was told by the people waiting to be screened that I should cooperate, shut up, and hurry up through the radiation emitting full-body scanner. They were willing subjects, therefore so should I be. Then one referred to me with the moniker of “asshole” in front of the traveling passengers and most notably their small children. I did not acknowledge this, but instead imagined how others in history no doubt had the same experience – not that I would compare my small battle with the likes of Gandhi or MLK. But then for me there is no right too small that is not worth fighting for… or in this case, being abused for by unlawful agents of government.
The police officer started to get involved, reinforcing the lie that I was required to undertake this illegal search and seizure process. I again asked for any law that proved this female police officer’s claim of authority, and the response was that the law was there but would not be shown to me.
I asked the police officer if I was being detained, and the answer was an uncomfortable no. However, she was more forceful with her retort, and attempted to exude an authoritarian appeal.
Since I was not being detained, I stated that this must reasonably and logically mean that I was free to carry on with my travels and so I reached for my baggage again to get on my way. To this, the police officer became belligerent and began to threaten me. Her loud words soon formed the repeated threatening question:
“Do you want to go to jail”?
Like a bully on the schoolyard in front of his peers, again…
“Do you want to go to jail?”
Surprised at her questions and her unprofessional, unconstitutional, and unlawful demeanor, I almost laughed thinking that anyone would actually answer in the affirmative to that type of question. Her tough-guy act was not very impressive – more like a bad parent scolding their kid for nothing but asking an uncomfortable question. Taken aback by this strange surge of testosterone presented by this female officer, I asked what it was that I had done that was against the law that warranted such a question to be asked of me. And again I requested for the police officer to reveal the law that I had apparently violated or explain what it was that she thought was reasonable suspicion or probable cause for detaining me and threatening to send me to jail without first offering to arrest me and allow a bit of due process and “Miranda rights” beforehand.
Of course I would have refused to accept or under-stand any political rights offered by a security guard of a government corporation if she had read them. But it’s the thought that counts.
After a few similar exchanges asking for the law I had broken and why I was being verbally accosted for standing up politely for my natural rights; without any movement, threat, or provocation from myself, the policewoman suddenly stepped at me and grabbed my right arm at the forearm and wrist, to which I allowed her to do without retort or fighting back. She forcibly twisted my arm so that it was forced behind my back and then pressed it in a slightly painful upward position. Unsure of why this woman was attacking me without warning or notice, I did not resist in any way – though her strength and form was certainly not enough to actually hold me in this restraining position. I stayed still under duress and inquired painfully what exactly I had done to warrant such treatment and under what authority she was acting?
At no time did this policewoman state that I was being detained, that I was being placed under arrest, or read any type of rights to me. She just maintained her hold on my arm as I faced the conveyer belt with the whole airport security and passenger crowd and children, TSA, and her police officer male partner watching on. Continuing to ask what gave her the right to do what she was doing while placing me under pain and restraint, instead of lawfully answering my question and declaring her legal intent or purpose, she then began to apply a bit more pressure upward on my arm while standing behind me – now pushing hard enough to actually cause fairly severe pain throughout my arm and shoulder. I stated that she was now hurting me and asked her in pain to please cease and desist. Instead she pressed even harder with still no directions or communications as to the purpose of her assault or as to what I should be doing besides standing there and taking this abuse.
It is important to note that I could not see what was happening behind me during this surreal encounter.
At this point (after what seemed like a long time but was likely a bit less than a minute of actual time) it was my natural reaction to the increased pressure and pain she was causing my arm and shoulder to twist very easily out of her restraining hold of my wrist, at which point I raised both hands non-threateningly halfway in the air at my sides and stated: “I am not resisting.”
She carelessly blurted out: “Yes you are”, to which I stated in a surprisingly confident, calm, and mature manner: “No, I am not. There is nothing to resist!” My adrenaline was now of course pumping a bit. I put my hands down and again asked as calmly as possible after just being attacked by this woman for the law that I was breaking and to point out exactly what thing or lawful demand that I was resisting. There was no order or request made by the officer that I could actually be accused of resisting, and her violent attack was accompanied by no reason for it.
I could not even be accused of resisting arrest, since no mention of even detaining me let alone arresting me was ever mentioned by any party. The aforementioned question of whether or not I wished to go to jail would probably not stand as a demand or proper question for a lawful officer of government to make.
I was however informed later by my traveling friend that the female police officer all but threatened him, stating that we were both not going to be allowed on our flights and that “your friend will likely go to jail”.
I was told after this ordeal by the close friend I was traveling with that the police officer’s partner, a more professional acting Asian man whom I did not speak to personally, walked over and stated something to the offending female ‘s ear before I ceased to be put in pain and broke the grip of this female officer. He thought he might have warned her that she was acting out of line, but I have no proof of what was said between them and again had no view of the scene. I do know that my traveling friend made it very clear to this male partner police officer that I was not “dangerous” and that I was simply asserting my rights, and that this officer concurred and reassured him that it would likely end well if I cooperate. His uniform might have been that of a bicycle cop, and he did not appear to have the authoritarian disposition as his partner.
At this point, tensions were flared and my arm and shoulder was throbbing in pain. The police officer then began asking me more politely for my driver’s license – as if she had not just accosted me. Still confident in my rights, I asked her why she needed to see my license to drive, since I was not operating a motor vehicle and was not in any form of commercial activity today, least of all with the police. I also asked her for her name and information because she had just acted violently against me outside of any perceived authority to do so.
She stated that the Driver’s License was a form of ID and that the law required me to show it to a police officer when it was requested.
Of course, I asked for the law that required me to show my Driver’s License for the purpose of “identification“, stating that I’d gladly hand over my driver’s license even though I was not driving, but simply required proof of claim to her statement that I was required by law to do so, especially to the person who just physically and unlawfully harmed me.
I include the following in this report (though this was not quoted at the actual scene of this crime) for the readers understanding of my request for a law which would violate my inalienable natural rights regarding being required to show my driver’s license as “identification” since it is a political license for a certain purpose, which is certainly not a forced right called “identification”:
“License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).
“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.
“A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.
“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.
“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).
“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
“Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.
“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
Please note here that there was only one injured party, and that was myself. I was violently engaged in an unwarranted, forceful, and painful hold. And as you will come to see, I was molested publicly for all to see against my will and in full view of the same police officer that assaulted and hurt my arm.
I would also like to point out here that under no circumstance did I identify myself as “cargo” that is required to be “screened” by TSA.
49 USC § 44901 – Screening passengers and property
(5) Screening defined.— In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosives detection systems, explosives trace detection, explosives detection canine teams certified by the Transportation Security Administration, or a physical search together with manifest verification. The Administrator may approve additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security and to assist in meeting the requirements of this subsection. Such additional cargo screening methods shall not include solely performing a review of information about the contents of cargo or verifying the identity of a shipper of the cargo that is not performed in conjunction with other security methods authorized under this subsection, including whether a known shipper is registered in the known shipper database. Such additional cargo screening methods may include a program to certify the security methods used by shippers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) and alternative screening methods pursuant to exemptions referred to in subsection (b) of section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
TITLE 49 Section 40102 further defines this legal term, which I never lawfully claimed to be or participate in:
(12) “cargo” means property, mail, or both.
As we can read, there is no defining statement that “people” or “persons” shall be “screened”. And though I know all too well that government refers to humans as “animals” and trades its citizens and prisoners as commodities with CUSIP numbers on the collateralized bond markets, I certainly have never agreed that as a presumed “passenger” I agree to be treated as property or any other form of “cargo”. I am nothing if not solely a living, breathing man.
And you wonder why they wouldn’t show me the law?
Continuing with my official accounting of this day:
She again demanded to acquire my driver’s license, and carefully I stated that I am not refusing to obey her offer or any lawful order she may give, and that I was still waiting to see the law that required such an action on my behalf before I proceeded to be identified through such a license to drive a vehicle against the law.
At no time did I ever refuse any lawful order presented by any officer, but instead kept asking over and over to see any law before I complied with any demand to follow any legal demand. I never received any written law or codified number representing any law by any officer. No law or code was ever presented to me in any way, just as one would expect when dealing with any street gang or private security guard acting violently and without cause, reason, or warrant to do so.
She didn’t like my response, but apparently felt there might be a risk to assault me again, as I informed her that she was acting as an individual outside of her authority for lawsuit purposes.. Instead, she gave me a defeated yet determined look that let me know she would not be backing down as she did not detain me, as if I was somehow being unreasonable.
At some point here a fifth TSA agent forcibly removed my bags from the conveyer belt against my will. He stated that they would be re-screened, though stated no purpose for this action. I verbally stated that a re-screening was not consented to, but that he could do as he pleases with his personal responsibility for his actions, even though they had already been properly x-rayed (screened) once. Perhaps they were negligent in their first capacity?
I pointed out which bags and personal items were mine because I was asked to.
I was again told that I was not properly screened, to which I again disagreed and stated clearly that I had completed the screening process and was declaring this to be true and clear for all witnesses – that my bags were already scanned twice and that my body had walked through the metal detector successfully and offered to repeat this step. I then declared for the record that I did not consent to any other type of screening or physical abuse or restraint from any other party involved unless probable cause and reasonable suspicion could be proven, and that again I will submit if any law could be shown in support of their requests.
I was also told by the TSA supervisor and the female police officer that I had somehow agreed and consented to their unlawful pat-down because there were apparently some posted signs that stated as much when I entered the TSA screening and secured area – the same “security” area I have been entering the airport for 40 years without such presumed consent. I could tell that this was a ploy that they had used before – a well rehearsed con to keep the masses in line.
I stated honestly that I did not see these alleged signs (which I did not) and that I had signed no contract or unilateral agreement nor ever implied that I had read or acknowledged any posted signage. I then stated that “I rebut your presumption of my consent to these signs” in this regard, and then asked to actually see those signs by having the officer point them out and walking over so I could read them. I was told “no” and that I was not allowed to leave the screening area or move. I again asked “Does that mean you are detaining me?” And again the answer was “no“. But of course, they had my bags, and they knew I would not leave without my personal property. Essentially, they were holding my baggage as a hostage to gain my consent.
I then demanded to be shown the alternative entrance to the airport that bypassed this illegal checkpoint and signage so that I was not forced into a presumption of agreement to forced consent to these so-called posted rules, since I was not aware of any law that required me to consent to any signage or any request that had been made of me so far by any party under their official capacity, let alone some signs outside the area that I did not see or get opportunity to read and grant my own informed consent.
Again, the answer was that I could not leave the area, though no law was quoted proving that claim and no arrest or detainment order was given to me. I was not being officially detained but was being threatened that I should not move or again touch my personal property.
I then informed all parties that from this point forward any further actions taken against me or my property would be outside of any authority or jurisdiction of government without first providing a copy of the laws granting that authority, and that any further actions of any type (including any already taken outside of law or under its color) would be taken personally as from natural men and women without the protections of their government badges or perceived authority, and that I would sue anyone personally and also put a lien on and sue for their insurance bond and any and all personal property as remedy for the actions of those who threatened me or took any other action against me under color of law.
I was told that I had actually volunteered to be “screened” by entering the security checkpoint area, and that this included the consent to the signage that apparently stated I must involuntarily consent to a “pat down”. I again asked to be escorted out of the “security area” and shown the alternative entrance into the airport that did not require this tyrannical treatment and manufactured consent, since the process was just stated to be both “voluntary” and “consensual”.
The response was that no, I could not leave the security area and that there was not alternative entrance to the airport – that I was required to be screened in this area.
I asked why then had the police officer misstated the fact that this was a voluntary process, and again to please show me the law that requires this screening process against my will and informed consent to a voluntary process?
Because the TSA stopping my right to travel was still holding up the line of people waiting to be screened behind me, the frustrated agents and police officer suggested that we move to “a more private location” so that I can be illegally patted down without my consent. I stated clearly that I would not go anywhere that there were no witnesses and would not follow the TSA agent to the empty side of the screening area or out of view of the “public“ unless he could show me a law that required this. I agreed instead to walk bare-footed with a hurt shoulder and arm to the end of the conveyer and to the next machine to the right where the full body pat down procedures generally take place but no further. I still was not allowed to touch my personal property, which was eventually brought over to the area by one of the TSA agents who claimed that it was now properly screened.
I wondered what kind of screening it had underwent before that was not proper – the normal process – but did not ask.
Insisting that I could not proceed into the airport, the agents brought my personal belongings and baggage over to this metal table, and insisted that I could not touch my things until I was patted down. I verified that they were detaining my personal property without probable cause to do so and without showing any law or authority to do so.
Also, the TSA manager in a suit and tie had joined the group before this, and so I again stated that I do not under any circumstances consent to any of these actions or requests for a “full-body pat down”, though I would gladly comply with the law that requires it if that law were to be shown to me. To this I was ignored and received more frustrated sarcastic looks. And so I again informed the TSA supervisor, manager, and police officer that any actions taken by them would be taken on their own personal behalf, outside of any lawful or any governmental agency protections, unless they showed my their authority under the law. I also repeatedly stated that I would sue anyone there personally who violated my natural or any other form of rights under color of law by touching my body in any way without my consent, as well as to sue their departments and any insurance bonds attached to their positions as legal officers of a government. I warned them that this meant their personal property was liable for remedy in court. Their response was not so much verbal as it was confusion and in-credulousness.
The TSA manager and uniformed supervisor then informed me that I was required to obtain a pat down before I would be allowed into the “sterile environment” once again.
I again asked if I was being detained?
Again the answer was no.
Again I asked the TSA and police officers if I wasn’t being detained, why I was not free to go?
And again the answer was that I had not been properly screened, and that I could not take my “baggage” until I was “properly screened”.
After a few minutes of conversational rhetoric, the TSA manager told the supervisor it was OK to pat me down, to which I stated clearly and precisely that I did not consent to this unlawful procedure. The supervisor who would conduct the illegal pat-down was confused and annoyed as I repeatedly looked him in the eyes and stated that I do not consent to his touching any part of my body, and that any such action on his part would be taken on his own accord without the protection of law, and that he would be personally liable for any of his actions in this regard.
Meanwhile, the rubber gloves were snapped on by the TSA supervisor.
After multiple verbal restatements of my non-consent to being “patted down” or to any other “touching” of my person, I stated again clearly in full earshot of the police officer and the TSA manager that I do not consent and that any actions would be taken as an assault under duress and legal action would follow.
When asked to put my arms in the air at my sides, I complied with the action while stating that no, I do not consent to this action or the search. I remained as calm as anyone can while being publicly humiliated and molested in front of mothers, children, and a helpless and concerned friend (who later took three opioid relaxation pills to calm his nerves after witnessing all of this and being threatened that he would not be able to fly on his airline).
Again, I stated for the record that I never agreed to be patted down or touched in anyway. Even as I put my arms in the air, I continuously told all parties that I did not agree or consent to this process.
The TSA Supervisor went through his routinely worded script, stating officially exactly where he would be touching me next. And to each item requested I stated that I did not consent to that and that he was acting in his own capacity while molesting me in public in front of multiple witnesses. Of course, he showed concern at this, but was egged on by his boss – the TSA manager in a suit and tie – who by the way was perfectly cordial and polite with me as he watched me being inappropriately and illegally molested without my consent.
When the TSA supervisor was going to touch me on my penis and scrotum, he went through the motions and asked me first whether or not I had any sensitive areas on my body that he should avoid or be careful around.
I stated that my whole body was in fact very sensitive, and that I did not consent to his touching any part of my very sensitive body. At this point I made eye contact with the female police officer and told her that she would be called as witness to these illegal acts, to which she stated that yes she would act as an official witness. I verified this in triplicate with verbal affirmation from this “police officer”.
He proceeded to grab my ankles and as he slid his hands upward, he stated that he would be touching me from my feet to my “torso”, to which I again stated that no, I do not consent to being touched in any way whatsoever, and that if he proceeded he was acting on his own accord outside of the law and of his position within the Transportation Security Agency.
Even after my statement of non-consent, he continued with his scripted words telling me that he was now going to continue the search up to where my legs met with my “torso”, and that he may touch my private areas with the “back of his hand”.
I stated that absolutely not would I consent to that, and he proceeded to “pat” me up, touching firmly where my leg and scrotum met and brushing my genitalia.
I stated clearly that this was not my “torso”, and that he had just touched a sensitive and very private area without my permission or consent, which is called molestation. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance this agent must have been going through at this moment.
Next, he positioned himself behind me and felt the bare skin between my pants and underwear as he narrated his molestation actions, his fingers reaching inside my pants and around my “torso“. He again told me that he would be touching my “sensitive area” of the buttocks with the “back of the hand”, which he did against my verbally expressed non-consent to such an action.
Eventually, the gloves came off and were placed on the bomb-sniffing robot or whatever that apparatus is. It occurred to me that at any time he could very easily have planted evidence for that machine to pick up.
This went on until finally the TSA supervisor stated behind my back that: “You are now properly screened. Thank you.”
I stated sarcastically, “No sir, thank you!!! You will be sued!”
During this process I repeatedly demanded to be given identification and personal mailing addresses so that I may direct my legal case to the proper parties involved. I was of course met with resistance here, as I’m sure they took me very seriously based on my verbage. I did receive a business card from both the police officer and the TSA manager, with the name of the supervisor on the back. This was all the ID I could get.
Inversely, the Manager begged and pleaded for me to hand over my driver’s license so that he could file a “incident report”, and would not let me leave until I did. He was not detaining me, but would not let me touch my bags and property until I did so. He asked for my airline boarding pass so that he could “inform Delta Airlines” that there was a passenger who caused an incident by refusing the screening process. After hesitation, and in stating that in no way am I acting in commercial activities, driving in any way, participating in commerce of any type, or that this “license to drive” in any way implies “identification”, I handed over my driver’s license and boarding pass to the manager so that he could correctly fill out his report, and he took them across the security area to copy the information.
When I asked for a copy of that report, he refused stating that it would not be ready for a couple of days and that it was not a public document.
The police officer then asked me to give her my “driver’s license” for her records, to which I refused the request unless she had a law that showed I must comply with that request, since I was not “driving”. I offered to hold the driver’s license in the air so that she could read what she wanted from it, stating again that in no way was I offering “identification” or operating in any regulated commercial action.
Frustrated, she copied down the information she wanted as I held out the driver‘s license. I did show her my boarding pass when she requested it.
When she asked if the address on my card was my current address, I answered no, and refused to offer any more information without a law stating that I must. She demanded my current address again, and I rebutted the legal presumption of her authority to demand that information again. She did not abuse me anymore, though I believe she wanted to.
In the end, as I was finally “free to go” into the airport without one of these people stepping in my way and without actually detaining me, contorting my arm in pain, or using my luggage as a hostage.
The Manager told me then as if we were back-stage that he understood what I was doing in standing up for my rights and that he respected that. I responded by stating that in no way did he show any respect and that he was just witness, accomplice, and agitator in an illegal activity outside of his lawful place. He told me he was just doing his job, to which I replied yeah, I know, you’d beat my head in if it would feed your family. I was already told that by your airport police last time they violated my rights.
My traveling companion was severely stressed at this point, ironically angry at me for standing up for my rights rather than being angry at TSA for physically molesting me in his presence and against my will. He let me know that the police woman told him in a threatening way that we would both be missing our flight and that I would likely be going to jail. I was not stopped or questioned by the airline or TSA on the rest of this flight or on my returning flight.
The second police officer, to the best of my knowledge, acted in accordance with the law and was reassuring to my friend. As far as I know, he stepped in when the police woman inappropriately put me in a painful hold and possibly informed her that she was acting outside of her capacity. This is only hearsay that was forwarded by my traveling companion, but I wish to commend this man for being an upstanding officer – the only one in this account.
For the purposes of this disclosure, I have chosen to withhold the names of the parties involved, but will certainly be suing those parties to the full extent of the law as well as assembling a grand jury to attempt to force the TSA to post appropriate signage about consent and voluntarism regarding this screening process. While I believe I should be compensated greatly for this pain and suffering I have been put through as in any other molestation or rape case, I am much more interested in forcing this rouge corporation of government to cease and desist such illegal activates so that all others may travel freely without molestation by presumed and forced consent under threat and duress.
If anyone reading this would like to help in a financial or legal capacity and make this case an international thorn in the side of a corrupt government, please contact me.
Though I do not claim to derive any personal or political “rights” from any government document or constitution, I do state that government has a constitution that names and restricts its own rights against people, and many court precedents that show that the natural right of travel supersedes any other political or positive legal concoction placed over that natural right. But the constitution only restricts government when lawfully applied, and most people are afraid to sue government to this end. Here is just one of many precedent-setting court opinions:
“As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word “travel” in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
I thank you for reading my account of crime and molestation that took place on Saturday, April 27th, 2013, and hope that it may further the cause to end what may only be called true tyranny and oppression in this country.
The preceding has been my best and honest recounting of the events of this day, from approximately 1pm to just after 2pm Mountain time zone. I will be demanding the film footage from the airport and TSA as soon as possible, and stepping up to the plate to change this mistaken and implied ability of any government agency to trample on anyone’s natural rights of travel.
Oh, and for reference… I present below my former (filmed) encounter with the “airport police” at Salt Lake City Airport, which includes the violation of my rights as well as me being informed that “free speech is not absolute”, and that I “would need a permit for free speech” in the airport. Please note my peaceful yet confident and firm demeanor with these security guards as representative of my disposition and temperament regarding this new incident as reported above.
And watch the media spin and lies here:
.
Also, for the record, I submit the following information as the reasons that I do not submit to a full-body imager or “back-scatter” radiation emitting device. This is the information I was handing out at the airport in the above videos:
–=–
Opt Out!
The Facts About The Whole Body Imager Device
–=–
Is It Constitutional?
The 4th amendment to the constitution specifically states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is It Stopping Terrorism?
Thousands of illegal immigrants come across the southern border of these United States unchallenged, while an honest American cannot go about his own country without being subjugated to an illegal search and seizure at the airport, and get molested by TSA agents for declaring their rights to “Opt-Out”.
Is It Photographing And Storing Your Naked Photos?
“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities… It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine…”-Cheryl Johnson- Office of Transport Security manager
These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing… We think it’s significant.”-EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg in interview with CNET
“Approximately 35,314 images… have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine…” used in the Orlando, Fla. Federal Courthouse. -William Bordley- Associate General Counsel with the Marshals Service
A 70-page document showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information” says that, in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.” –Procurement Specification For Whole Body Imager Devices For Checkpoint Operations, report by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TSA
TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz lied to CNET, stating that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them… I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport”
Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?
“Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none…” -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
Although the forces generated from these scanners are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. Translation: It destroys your DNA!-Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic (smooth muscle) mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease.”-Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact”. -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Children and passengers with gene mutations – around one in 20 of the population – are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world.”-Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research
“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays… No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…”-Dr Michael Love-, Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” they wrote. “We still don’t know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system…”-John Sedat- Biochemist, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
“Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don’t have enough information to make a decision on whether there’s going to be a biological effect or not.”-Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario
“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t”-Peter Rez- Arizona State University
“[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation.”-National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, from a 2002 report that studied these security devices.
“Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.”-Technology Review article from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
In other words… millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA!
–=–
Report by Clint Richardson of We Are Change Utah (wearechangeutah.org) with references provided for your own research.
–=–
Thanks for your public support in these trying times!
Yours in solidarity…
And walking the walk so that hopefully others wont have to…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 8th, 2013