One Stop Source for Wisconsin ACTION

Is a wireless safety activist a threat?

Wireless safety activists want safe technologies to replace wireless ones, not no technology or infrastructure.

But here is how a person passionately advocating for safer technology might be classified as a potential “terrorist” in Wisconsin (or elsewhere). First, see this definition of terrorism at the Wisconsin Homeland Security website:

“Terrorism” Definition

Terrorism is any activity that (1) involves an act that (a) is dangerous to human life, environment, or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (b) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state or other subdivision of the United States; and (2) appears to be intended (a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Now, in a loose interpretation of this definition, giving sources and science to the public and governmental officials that show wireless radiation limits are not biologically protective might be DEEMED an attempt to “destroy” “critical (wireless) infrastructure or key resources.”  People with Radiofrequency Sickness issues and others with special vulnerabilities (pregnant women, the young, the old, the sick) may be especially adamant about the need to consider the ramifications and the needs of all people.

Additionally, a wireless safety advocate might be described as attempting to “coerce” a civilian population or influence the policy of the government. Even those activists who do not advocate using force (most, if not all of us) might be described as posing a “threat” because their position is that people can be harmed by current wireless emissions being allowed by the government.

Furthermore, simply shutting down wireless communications or utility infrastructures without replacing them with safer technologies is not what activists want. But a warped interpretation of our stance could be chosen by those who want no questions or dissent about the safety of their wireless golden goose.

Simple Definition of coerce

: to make (someone) do something by using force or threats

  • : to get (something) by using force or threats

 

Simple Definition of threat

: a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

  • : someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc.
  • : the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen

Consequently, someone quite mild mannered, yet vehement about wireless safety, could experience detrimental results of being on various “terrorist” lists. This is truly a failure of the application of the term, terrorist. It is an abuse of the system, which is meant to protect everyone from attacks, not from the free exchange of ideas.

 

Poem: River Run 2016

Edited, updated version of poem below.

Disclaimer: not all community workers/people are involved in this odd movement. There is no finger pointing, but only the experience of one man recorded.

 

River Run

 

Abruptly, without a plan, he breaks away

from synchronized hounding by

red and black vehicles, police cars, ambulances

and unmarked vans at every turn;

from pink-shirted strangers loudly mimicking

his private thoughts; and uncanny

internet ads and radio songs.

 

He saunters, jogs, then dashes

down to the river path, yearning

for a moment of peace.

As he traces the river’s curves

he feels her pulse ferrying him

past the packs of service trucks,

jeering pedestrians, and brain-tampered

neighbors; out-of-range of the microwave

jolts, aerosol dosing and AI programs.

He hears the river chanting, never mind,

never mind, never mind.

 

The man drops into a small, grassy dip.

Listening, he begins to breathe again

the way he used to, with effortless focus.

He digs out a pencil and crumpled receipt

to jot some phrases for a poem.

He has eight minutes until the lull

is cracked by a boisterous hoard

of kayakers clamoring by

as a low plane buzzes over,

two indistrinctly uniformed walkers

march past and back again, twice,

and sirens and chem-trails rip through the sky,

demanding his reconnection.

 

But they are too late.

The timeless river now paces his brain,

dipping beneath bridges, around buildings,

bypassing fleeting eyes and ears systems.

She endlessly messages, never mind, never mind,

never mind, never mind.

Nourished by deep river silt,

rugged willows anchor the bank,

dwarfing the fractured sky.

 

 

US Code on human experimentation vague

The deployment of smart meters is a type of experiment since “no one knows” how much the increased daily electromagnetic radiation will impact people’s health.

So, how well protected are Americans from involuntary experimentation of all kinds?

Code 50 of the U.S. Code addresses some points on this. However, logical questions occur that the code does not answer, as follows:

*Does Code 50 include electromagnetic radiation biological impact testing as a biological agent or pathogen? If not, what other code would protect people from this type of experimentation?

*What happens if some other governmental or industrial authority than The Secretary of Defense wants to conduct such a biological experiment? Does this law cover this and protect the people?

*How would consent from “each human subject” be gotten by law enforcement prior to use bio-agents in riot or any other deemed “threat” situation? (It is not logical).

*Who decides who is considered to be a “threat,” and thus, may be experimented upon? In other words, are law abiding non-combatants safe as a rule? Or are other criteria used to classify people as a threat, perhaps including political activities or speech?

Here is the law:

50 U.S. Code § 1520a – Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a

(a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or

(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.

(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) Informed consent required

The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

(d) Prior notice to Congress

Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) “Biological agent” defined In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—

(1)

death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2)

deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or

(3)

deleterious alteration of the environment.

(Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, § 1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774.)

 

 

 

Daily diversions: human rights laws forbid remote crime

It is always important to look at the laws that protect every person from crime. In the age of remote – everything, it is easy for new remote types of crime to occur. Examples are electronic interference and tampering, and harassment of individuals using remote tech and other covert, harmful exposures. Who is monitoring this to protect us? Apparently, no one is yet. In fact, there is some talk and research suggesting corruption at high levels may be allowing these crimes to blossom. (I cannot verify this analysis, but the author does seem to present factually based information).

The following laws stand between vulnerable non-combatant citizens and ruthless, covert abuses of the remote technology, as cited in another article:

The US Constitution expressly forbids cruel punishment in the 8th Amendment. United States Federal Law forbids torture under Code 18 section 2340. The US is bound by several treaties to never torture: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (legally defining the meaning of the UN Charter treaty, and the most-translated document in world history), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (an interesting study of the US saying one thing and doing the opposite), the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Importantly, these laws do not say there are exceptions to allow torture; that is, the torturer cannot use the specious “ticking time bomb” excuse that torture was required to save lives. For example, one US treaty to end torture is the UN Convention Against Torture. It states under Article 2: (17)

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Convention III of the Geneva Conventions defines torture in Article 3 as, “outrages upon human dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”

 

 

Daily diversions: last post?

Of course, our lives are in God’s hands.

Yet, observing what has been happening to me for at least a year makes me think it might not be long before I will not be able to post again.

Research gang-stalking, electronic harassment and non-consensual biological experimentation. It may sound strange but seems to be a real problem for a number of people.

I just learned that my current smart meter case at the federal level is due for a decision in May.

I hope to be able to update you.

Peace.

Blue Oar    Peaceful Moment

Daily diversions: waiting, but not waiting

The Department of Energy is still writing up its response to my ADA/Civil Rights case attempting to get the 2 smart meters replaced at my house. I am waiting, but not waiting.

This just means that each day holds amazing things to pay attention to!

Today, it was a kettle of hawks above my house. Hawks may flock twice a year during migrations. They can number in the thousands then (it says online), but there were probably less than twenty-five circling in a lovely way.

I can’t keep my faith quiet either, and each day brings comforts and joys. For example, I see many people with Alzheimer’s and wonder, how can God still hold their spirits when their brains are damaged? But that is the wonderful thing: our bodies fail, but God holds us regardless of the kind of damage! We cannot be stolen from his loving hands.

There is some talk online (to be trusted? who knows?) about brain data being collected and “stolen” from people’s brain waves to use on other people. This could be scary. But actually, it is simply another form of data collection and will not interfere with God’s Plan for his children. Our brain wave data is not us. And tampering with our brains could not touch our spirits’ safety! Jesus’s own are safe, despite the data craze and things that may cause damage in this world. GREAT NEWS.

Well, signing out here for now, waiting for the DOE’s letter, but also not waiting: living each moment. PEACE.

Good news for every situation

The way to wake up is through the eyes of the spirit of God, His love and truth.

We need to keep our lamps of the Spirit burning always.

 

Here is The Good News for whatever is here, for whatever is coming, and for all times:

John 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Romans 8:28New International Version (NIV)

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[a] have been called according to his purpose.

Luke 8:16-17

16“Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light. 17For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

 

8:38-39New Living Translation (NLT)

38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. 39 No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers