Health and Caution (Update) 11

In Uncategorized on December 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm

[Reserved: Emergency warning would/will be issued here.]


Continued from Health and Caution (Update) 10. Visit also Radiation and Health.


Tu, 1.1.13, 10:16+

Although I had previously tentatively established a probable date of occurrence for an IGE-R for mid to late 2012, and have recently disclosed preemptive data depicting other events which have already occurred (e.g. Hurricane Sandy, Newtown school shooting), the reality that confronts me is that I do not have accurate detail either at this time pertinent to an IGE. The question remains as to why this is: is it outside my range (approx. 4 months), or perhaps too near and therefore less discernible? Thus, I generally employ a process of elimination on a day to day basis, with the consideration that it may also yet be a little while longer than theoretically anticipated*. I do not at this time sense cause for dramatic alarm, but am rather motivated to persevere as well as increase attempts to inform others of the situation and concern.

* As early as October 13th (i.e. during the 911 call) I began to waive concerns that it would occur in 2012, yet remaining vigilant toward accurate discernment — especially as the other scenarios tended to appear to lead up to the [anticipation of the] event, and it was as though I had ecountered an impasse in my ability to verify when. Perhaps in part because of this and as part of a characterization**, I may have concluded that the delay was in response to other tectonic movements, and would yield a more severe quake and tsunami which would more assuredly damage reactors.

** At the time I was [likely] responding to repetitive threats in a disruptive/provocative fashion, and had basically initially mentioned doubt that it would occur before or on Dec. 26th (again), following up later with remarks about how [‘I’/]’We’*** would make some adjustments here and there to ensure the quake and resulting damage were severe. It’s important to understand how much I rely on tenor and inflection to achieve a culturally relevant and accepted (though controversial) message, and to mitigate situations with provocative humor. The aforementioned portion may well be recorded in the 911 call.

*** It’s likely I utilized the Islam-inspired ‘We’ for various reasons and toward the aims of subtle provocation and/or deceptive auto-implication, yet there may have been also an intention to relate a concept which I had yet to process fully at the time – – in part as I was striving to secularize it. It is essentially that I am [likewise] not acting alone but as a recipient of information and/or data. In an analogy to physics, or perhaps to attempt to explain thru physics, it may be that space-time is warped by the gravity of Christ, and information is related in an ‘entanglement’ fashion, so as to supersede the impact of static events and alot for an intervention that would otherwise be impossible [for me].


Su, 13.1.13, 19:48+

I’ve been reading some more books recently. They are: Children with Traumatic Brain Injury (Schoenbrodt, et al.), Nobody Don’t Love Nobody (S. Bess), Living with Your Husband’s Secret Wars (M. Means) and What’s So Great About America (D. D’Souza). I got most of them at a thrift store. I researched Dinesh online and watched some videos of his news and show segments. I’m also reading the Torah again, and recently completed Genesis.

I also recently viewed Justice Sotomayor’s interview on 60 Minutes, and was interested in her alluding to evil people. As many of the situations involving my depicting another’s victimization accurately enough to prevent it have involved Hispanics, and since I surmised that she would have encountered the dilemma of conspiracy, corruption and culpability, I felt her comments could yield some insight into how much impact my antics can have on someone’s psyche (e.g. via inflection and/or micro emotions).

As for professionalism, I accept her struggle and status to be imperative to the maintenance of civilization, yet tend to regret the intonation of reparation made available by the circumstances preceding her appointment.

Thus, the nature and process of election from a theological and secular vantage were contrasted, perhaps deliberately, and with the apparent aim of facilitating injustice and furthering temptations thereunto as well as consequence for integrity.

In essence, it appears that the goal of progress in civil rights and cultural integration has been subverted to that of collusive discrimination and the justification of [attending] hypocrisy.

To make an analogy (and a characteristic one at that, though milder than some of my most recent rhetoric) it would seem that the enthusiasm directed towards the ‘step in the right direction’ of progress could be attributed to the ignorance of many, who — much like it could be said of one who is disoriented and is steadfastly pursuing an incorrect direction — likely presume it to be progressive, even if/when it’s the wrong way.

And although the characterization is milder, I still feel that it embodies (in part due to context and timing) the concepts which my more controversial antics aim to address: that theological considerations are ever-present; and that the precedent and circumstance implies a degree of pessimism, and a necessity for caution, that relegates the interpretation of such excitement to a more doctrinal and direct analysis of the bestial nature of the human organism — and of the manner in which it effects genocide and/or propagates genocidal sentiments.


Th, 24.1.13, 20:37+

It appears that there may be differences in how I process tragedies from that of the general populace, and the additional prompting towards a consensus or standard – occurring amid reporting void of significant details – tends to be further alienating as well as concerning.

As much of the work I have done in regard to providing applicable security data has included presenting information from a characteristic and/or stereotypical vantage, it would perhaps be implied sufficiently therein that any intentional furthering of any intrinsic alienation could be counterproductive to the general aims of security and social cohesion – as it would be distracting and discriminatory.

Yet the basis for the alienation, from my perspective, is one wherein I: have experienced/been exposed to such discriminatory alienation from youth, as well as prior to, amid and following traumatic events, insomuch that I would have had time to conclude (e.g. via Scripture) the consequences of/for my involvement and had decided – not necessarily independent from inspiration – to persevere; and have been able to anticipate and attempt to mediate some of the more parabolic events – albeit not necessarily without an understanding of the high proclivity for failure, nor without the motive of expounding corruption and/or the illegitimate manifestation of various wills existing in opposition to such intervention; and therefore have accepted such experience as compulsory.

Thus, the concern that perhaps most primarily warrants address – especially in regard to mitigating any [operative] destructive trends following an IGE-R – is that the victimization of many, and most imperatively of children, would be both not accurately reported or acknowledged as such, as well as misrepresented and misused toward discriminatory or otherwise corrupt aims.


Th, 7.2.13, 18:52+

I primarily became notified of the Solomon Islands tsunami through news reports yesterday and today. This is not to say that I was not anticipating the significant geological activity, but that — like as for the Samoa earthquake and tsunami of 2009 — I was not sufficiently aware of the event enough so as to issue a relevant and/or accurate warning.

As my main recent concern has been for the US west coast and its nuclear reactors, I was concerned that my/the awareness may be toward that end — though I had seemed rather confident that such an event would yet be a little while longer — and any/the awareness seemed to challenge that notion, as I felt at times that I was not being vigilant enough (e.g. as a product of discouragement) and that time was running out to effectively inform a/the populace.

Yet, I tended to intrinsically conclude that a smaller quake and tsunami would soon occur and was therefor not altogether surprised, so much as motivated (e.g. to prepare and inform others about an IGE-R), encouraged (e.g. to more fully apply and accept my ability), and reassured (e.g. of my competence) by the recent quake and tsunami.

An important note is that I had mentioned, as early as October 2012, that such other tectonic movements would occur prior to a more massive quake and tsunami. Thus, this development is especially concerning as it could be that I was aware of it some time before, and as it could precede a larger event (ref. Tu, 1.1.13, 10:16+ @ ‘*’ above). 


Th, 14.2.13, 21:32+

Part of my analysis of America’s (et al.) behavior, mostly in regard to communicating concerns about an IGE-R to others from a secular vantage, includes the concept that the usurpation/sequestration of credit for identifying a planet-like object in December 2004 — which having been explicitly depicted by myself in September/October of the same year — could indicate, [perhaps] through symbolism, a [communication of a] desire and intention to ionize (i.e. ‘strip’ away orbiting electrons from atoms) others by allowing radiation release to occur. The validity of such an assessment may be predicated on the value given any attenuating motives. For example, the potentially high theological value of the planetary object, and my accurately depicting its existence without instrumentation or as the first to do so, especially amid an otherwise controversial revelation, would implicate various other drives in the same act of usurpation/sequestration.

Another incident I recall depicting during the same revelation was about an actor named Joe Pichler. I had correlated him with Job, and another actor with the [party/embodiment of] Satan of the same Scripture. I remembered the young[er] actor from a movie called Varsity Blues*. I was at a Thrift Store and saw a copy of the video and got it and watched it today. I had thought about this actor often recently, and when I searched his name online I noticed it was his birthday today. I may have noticed this some time (years) ago as well, and wondered if there was some sort of active memory of the date or if something religious/spiritual may have occurred. It seems that I had also correlated Joe with at least two other Biblical characters, Enoch and Lazarus.

I suppose these incidents illustrate how that, in pursuit of a goal of international security, I will often not relate much of religious experiences or concepts; yet rather assume a role of providing security for, rather than ministering to, others. Mostly I find that I am nonetheless compelled to keep a record of such developments and insights, as I understand they are important and involve the community in a manner that is potentially more enduring and relevant than the current [pending] situations.

* I had mentioned this movie during the 911 call in October, satirically introducing the concept that I had finally beat Van Der Beek’s half-time speech — in response to [any implications for] my ‘cheering’ the POTUS to victory in a potentially culturally taboo and/or historically controversial manner by providing him not only with details about future events (e.g. Hurricane Sandy), but counseling him on how to politically capitalize on them as well.



My health has began to improve, with my ability to tolerate heat increasing somewhat dramatically — though still significantly insufficient relative to others. I have really focused on applying the findings of the research I had compiled some time ago, and on getting more rest and exercise.

I feel as though my drive to recuperate and persevere is yoked to any/the/existing awareness of an IGE-R, and that I am constantly preparing to relay and/or respond to more developed insights.

This also seems natural, or to be a product of a systematic biological awareness, and to be occurring in a manner I first became familiar with prior to and leading up to a motorcycle accident at age 15 — wherein I had trained diligently to withstand such trauma, and yet may have disregarded, or at least tested or ‘proved’, my ability to avoid it from a prior and/or acute awareness of it.

Note: I did not become informed about the meteor or asteroid until after composing the above entries. In hindsight, the scenario may be of value to understanding the process of awareness from a secular and theological viewpoint. A corollary is that I had thought a lot about Abraham, Sodom and Russia in the weeks preceding the events — and yet focused on processing unresolved sentiments and preparing for an IGE-R.


Su, 24.2.13, 15:30+

I have been increasing efforts to inform others of the potential of an IGE-R and of the validity of unreported detail. Part of this process has involved distributing flyers and addressing individuals and groups.

[additional notes: During an altercation with my brother on February 23rd, wherein I utilized the opportunity to inform others of details pertaining to their and others’ security (e.g. Amish and Newtown shootings, IO and Japan tsunami, Katrina and Sandy, etc.), I began to depict the concepts of [the interpretation of] [existing] Scriptural/theological genocide as being slanted against blacks and Jews, and to argue that maintaining this trend was a motivation for eliminating my influence — at any cost to those who might otherwise benefit from my existence (i.e. subjects of revelations, those present, etc.). In the end of my dialogue, which was clownishly related, in part as a theme of childishness coupled with gangster/prisoner logic, I began to insinuate that my brother had [subconsciously] intended to provoke some sort of ‘show’ wherein others were [again] killed in some strange way. After basically stating that I didn’t want to do that, and perhaps that the ‘training wheels’ have to come off sometime, I found myself motivated to address prophetic concerns relating to the Jewish people (e.g. committing ‘prostitution’ with America, democracy, etc.) and to indicate that a Jewish couple and their unborn child would be involved in a car accident. As this scenario juxtaposed with one wherein I had informed my brother of a pending accident during the a revelation pertaining to the Amish incident in 2006, I began to argue that sometimes people do die and sometimes the child doesn’t make it — essentially arguing that it’s just that way when Satan can’t get what he wants from someone by other means [due to their integrity and as a response to others encouraging him], and that the wisdom of Judaism was manifesting itself when the body of Christianity was demonstrating too much hypocrisy. One phrase I recall making was, “We’ll see about you and your little Paul,” to emphasize that the child’s death was significant enough to rescind any benediction of Paul, being that Paul was as one ‘born prematurely’ and the child could be representative of ‘little Benjamin leading them’ (e.g. via supplantation if not ancestry).  Thereby the argument concluded with a rebuttal of Paulian/Christian dogma and a reproof of the modern rebellion* against me, as well as a warning of a pending tsunami, human rights abuses, religious provocations, government misconduct, and of the consequence of unwarranted implication and/or persecution. Thus, my prophetic activity has still been actively indicating an IGE-R, though at this time I still do not when it will occur.
* Visit: Additional Notes HCU.]


Sa, 15.6.13, 20:29+

I went to San Francisco again on May 26th. I had scheduled an interview with StoryCorps there and attended it and gave an interview, releasing it to their ownership. I also distributed some flyers about radiation and my involvement in foretelling current events. I was able to distribute about 20 flyers or so, and to have a few discussions with those who received and read them. Of particular note was a discussion I had with some students while riding the BART back to Pleasanton, in part as I was able to communicate a bit more about the situation.

[Add. Notes (added 4.8.13+): BART: As I began to discuss the details of the flyers and to address questions and explain more, I apparently began to become aware of new events and attempted to relate them. These events included a recent attack in China, political change in Egypt, the SF plane crash, and the defeat of MMA’s, A. Silva. I tended to be satirical and inflammatory at times while trying to elucidate the concept of utilizing these tactics and the importance of forthrightness. I encouraged the students to inform others (i.e. law enforcement) about my conduct and the content of the ‘package deal’* – making a dark humored joke about their being ‘saved by the terminal’, as it seemed that the ride would end before I could be more convincing in an(y) assertion of accuracy, relevancy and/or implication. Nonetheless the main theme throughout was a west coast IGE-R and my continued struggle to discern more about it, and to prepare myself and others for the anticipated dangers and consequences of it.
* By the time I was advocating their reporting the info, I had already discussed basic and specific parameters pertaining to the events described. For example, I had commented on S. Seagal’s influence on A. Silva as being like that of a distracting enamored/enamoring pervert (amid the satire). The addictiveness of ‘proof’ was likewise introduced as I had began to more quickly divulge commentary (in general), [controversial/undisclosed] historical detail, and the existence and relevance of said/such pending events. I, as is typical, began to be the primary or sole speaker, and was therefore relying on their body language, gestures and facial expressions to influence my content. As the process of such information transfer is intrinsically shocking, I tend to rely on the disturbance made available by my satirically commenting on popular current events/topics/concerns from the vantage of one with access to the available data (i.e. an ‘insider’) and whom possesses overtly stereotypical and/or outlandish religious beliefs, while alternating between creating artificial sentiments (and/or artificially creating sentiments) and poviding insight into the processes (e.g. emotional and logical) of relaying the data and responding to its sequestration and/or misapplication. Thus, I strive to give the audience a perspective of an ‘insider insider’, for lack of another term, while providing the necessary context to communicate the reality of a collective response to my activity. Furthermore, amid commenting on the relative audacity of certain sanctions due to the implicit hypocrisy involved, I segued into a ‘joke’ about my demands that my Answers account be reinstated, making a final offer that at least its content was sent to me or sanctions of information access would occur. I indicated that this hypothetical scenario should clarify the biases held in any assumption of the acceptance of modern popular morality, and reminded that it was yet more effective to deliver accurate information – as that was requisite and would also compound any injustices and facilitate condemnation.]


Th, 15.8.13, 14:21+

I’ve completed various books over the past few months. Some are already listed, and others include I. B. Singer’s Shosha, L. Mlodinow’s The Drunkard’s Walk and L. Yep’s Dragonwings (not completed yet).

I recall when Mlodinow’s book came out, and how I assumed it would stereotypically oppose the reality of my activity. I somewhat arbitrarily noticed it at a thrift store as I perused the books, but I soon recognized its title as familiar. I suppose its content leaves an example of the impact and scope of the collusion in reporting accurate details, and contributes to the notion that it is Semitic-oriented in origin. Perhaps most concerning then were the apparent/interpretable attempts at evoking sympathy or comradery by the author’s relating personal details while yet maintaining a scientific position based in persecution — as this type of behavior is generally accepted as sinister and can not refute evidence but runs the risk of entangling others in the deceit and misconduct associated with collaborating against the security of others.


I have continued to encounter intimidation from various individuals (and/or groups) who apparently/purportedly are gang-affiliated and yet have routine access to the area I am in.

I have also continued to strive to inform others of events and subjects relevant to their security by distributing flyers of my article Radiation and Health and/or the content below:

Biography and Current Events
I was attacked at the age of 9, prior to the SF quake of 1989, and began to estimate the effect of tectonic strain on humans; and to consider the religious aspects of predicting and forecasting earthquakes. My dad was a drug addict who blamed me for making him get treatment, and he would often curse Christ (calling Him the Devil) and promote betrayal. I was always rather ignorant of Scripture and religion; but during the attack I felt as though Christ was present and I concluded, after the way the assault was lied about, that my dad was dishonest and personally motivated against me — thus I didn’t talk much about my experiences. Later, when I was 15, I had a dream about getting into a wreck and woke up and was involved in a wreck the same day. I was a rather ardent student and the scenario perplexed me, and I also presumed Christ visited me that day as well. I suppose Christ became Someone I would plead with in order to stay alive, and I would find myself coming up with reasons such as protecting children and warning of tsunamis to warrant my continued existence. This perplexed me as well, and I would later read the Bible and learn about Judaism and Christianity. I began to realize that theology as well as science might help explain my experiences, and I sought occasion to help others accept what I had and in order to attain more security. I was well aware of the events of 9/11 prior to their occurrence, and was serving as a ‘portent’ for them, but never openly told anyone about them — other than to mime the towers falling as I was routinely being injected with drugs in my arms. I was concerned that my conviction would impede my release and hinder other warnings about tsunamis, and concluded that the medical records would testify in favor of the actuality of my awareness. Later, around October 2004, I was able to relate a lot of information while in San Joaquin General Hospital. I told about a tsunami that would occur on December 25th or 26th and gave an approximate death toll of about a quarter million — providing the impending death of Christopher Reeve as an example of my accuracy. I also warned about a New Orleans hurricane and told of a planetary object with a unique orbit that had yet to be discovered. I was released without questioning or communication — though I asked to talk with an attorney, etc. I reaffirmed the warning of the hurricane later at the University of the Pacific, and was not addressed about it after the fact there either. By this time I was able to discern there was motivation to keep things secret and it began to concern me. I subsequently gave warnings concerning such events as the Amish and Newtown school shootings, the events of Ft. Hood, the Japan tsunami and hurricane Sandy; often relating the deaths of other celebrities — such as Michael Jackson and Jenni Rivera — in hopes of eliminating the secrecy. The response was always the same: no acknowledgment in the media of my warnings. Some of the information is recorded on a 9-1-1 call placed October 13th, 2012 (at 5:35pm with a duration of 5m 19s); and most of my activity has occurred in a professional setting where reliable witnesses and/or recording methods could be presumed. My concern is that the public is becoming too ignorant of this aspect of their lives, and that the victims may be being used to confirm my abilities in an inhumane manner. I have also constantly warned of a west coast tsunami and am as of yet unaware of when it will occur. I began to suspect that there would be a series of tsunamis as early as March 2003. I encourage you to compel your leaders to be more forthright about this matter, and am reporting this as pertaining to your and others’ security. Thus far my accuracy has been rather impeccable. I apologize if you were not informed about this sooner.


W, 28.8.13, 20:13+

In regards to the developments in political motivation concerning military intervention(s), my view has remained one of promoting a comprehensive analysis (i.e./e.g. including any/the unreported and/or sequestered detail) that focuses on the provocative nature of certain actions/decisions and the concurrently witnessable [discriminatory] ramifications of such. Thus I have often argued – including during the aforementioned 911 call – that [therefor] there exists various impetuses that allow for, encourage, tolerate and/or necessitate a measure of deviant behavior in order to maintain a facade of innocence amid otherwise discernibly immoral conduct. This scenario would therefore propagate injustice, hypothetically/predictably culminating in an unfavorable outcome for certain minority or ‘at risk’ groups.


Sa, 31.8.12, 17:18+

A corollary to the above, as pertaining to my observation of others with an emphasis on the influence of microemotions and dopaminergic regulation, is how many of the prosecuting party apparently lack authentic grief for any victims but rather demonstrably harbor an enthusiasm that is too ‘giddy’ or otherwise circumspect [in and of itself]. This scenario would also correlate with Scripture (e.g. Ezekiel 9).


Tu, 3.9.13, 13:15+

Of importance to an explication of the various natures and conditions in which I supply security information is an example pertaining to the recent Boston Marathon event. During the 911 call of 13.10.12 I had outlined 3 scenarios (in addition to an east coast hurricane): an attack at a care facility in Stockton, CA; a school shooting; and an ‘unannounced terrorist attack’. I had satirized the ‘package deal’ as an aid to the[ir] [Nazi-type/-inspired] impetus of sequestering arms, and said I would update them when possible and stated that I would give some type of [online codified] hint as to the timing of the UTA.

At the time that this became possible I had been utilizing the Answers forum – primarily for addressing or commenting on the medical concerns of others and minimally for attempting to proliferate public awareness of said/similar relevant events (the factor I theorize most influenced the removal of my account) – when a request for a sonnet was posted (and wasn’t receiving other replies). Below are the completed compositions and examples of the medical-themed information I would provide:


Does death covet life,
Or life covet death?
Perhaps it isn’t right
To do anything but guess.
Yet only the living know
What the dead can not tell;
But being left alone
Can feel just like hell.
In a world that is fallen —
Where everything is rotten
And everyone is solemn —
The mystery is forgotten,
So no secret can escape
To defy the choice we make.


There is no happiness in lust for flesh.
There is no sorrow in love without life.
The times change, pass us by, and then we rest —
Our hearts left pleading, as if cut with knife.
Tomorrow is as deep as forever;
Yesterday is cold, long lost, forgotten.
Some will claim today is like the weather —
Changing the skies in our mind’s horizon.
Time is empty and void of any fate.
Together, the value of all is gone —
Returning to nothing, and yet still hate.
So then too must one realize the dawn.
Rebellion seems contrite to tempt the end,
And eternity must begin again.

(Note: the date of the email I sent myself containing the above is April 14th, 2013 @ 2:10p. I had also placed an afterword/answer – e.g. “So no, not me. But I did try to.”)

Depression and anxiety are both correlated with low magnesium levels. Affective spectrum disorders (e.g. depression, adhd, anxiety, etc.) are often correlated with Magnesium and Zinc deficiencies. These are common nutrient deficiencies that are more likely to occur during times of increased growth, maturation and stress. Addressing these deficiencies is being shown to influence recovery.

Self-injurious behavior (as well as bulimia) is associated with the dopaminergic system, and often hypersensitivity and/or insensitivity to dopamine is involved. Dopamine depletion is associated with both addiction and hypersensitivity — as hypersensitivity is a means of counteracting diminished availability. Increasing and/or regulating dopamine levels may reduce hypersensitivity. Tyrosine, the precursor to dopamine, is often utilized for this purpose as it allows for a regulated production of dopamine (e.g. vs. dopamine or dopamine agonists; sort of like carbohydrates vs. sugar) Dopamine is also involved in sensitivity to pain.

Parkinson’s has symptoms of shaking, and its treatments involve dopamine and its precursors. These treatments sometimes lead to addictive behaviors like gambling because too much dopamine becomes available at once and/or in response to a ‘rewarding’ behavior, hence the tyrosine hypothesis and argument. Yet neurons are something that can adapt – when there is too much of something they will become insensitive to it and when there isn’t enough they will become hypersensitive to it, so that they are more regulated at all times. In other words, one may be inclined to self-injure or purge because they are low on dopamine (a factor in depression) and as the behavior releases dopamine. Yet, due to the chronic low levels of dopamine, they are hypersensitive to it and the dopamine rush becomes addictive. In time, the behavior becomes less ‘rewarding’ because of an acquired insensitivity to its influence.

Regulation of dopamine levels appears to be the key to managing symptoms.

Dopamine is also called prolactin-inhibiting hormone. Prolactin can increase calcium levels and exacerbate a magnesium deficiency. Also, increased prolactin can be a response to low calcium levels that arise from insufficient magnesium. Correcting the magnesium deficiency could help prolactin levels go down. Vitamin D, which increases retention and regulation of calcium and magnesium, also regulates prolactin secretion. Aspartame may reduce dopamine levels by preventing the transport of tyrosine to the brain.

Also, it is important to consider neurons’ response to overstimulation — as that can destroy them they will shut down to protect themselves (maybe it can be compared to when pupils are exposed to light — when it’s dark they dilate or expand to let light in but when it is bright they contract; or perhaps as similar to a circuit breaker). Thus, just like when you stare at a bright light it takes time to adjust back to normal, so also overstimulation can yield a temporary effect that requires time to normalize. Furthermore, dopamine converts to adrenaline and noradrenaline which contribute to feeling so ‘alive’. In addition, dopamine and prolactin levels are influenced by sexual behavior.

Zinc and/or zinc-carnosine are often used to treat ulcers and help wounds heal. Yet long term high dosages (e.g. over 30 mg) is not generally recommended.

Tyrosine and iodine are necessary to make thyroid hormone, and selenium is necessary to convert it to a more active form. Low thyroid is associated with depression and low magnesium levels. Selenium and chromium often help magnesium levels go up. Some other related factors are that iron is necessary for dopamine synthesis, inflammation can reduce iron’s availability and increase prolactin secretion, and magnesium is antiinflammatory.

Some forms of nutrients are not advised: Chromium/Zinc/etc. “Picolinate” or Magnesium/Zinc/etc. “aspartate” or “glutamate”.


Stress is considered a hypermetabolic condition, meaning that it increases the utilization of nutrients and minerals. Continued exposure to stress will likely cause nutrient depletions. Magnesium, a mineral that is often deficient under normal cicumstances, has been demonstrated to remit treatment resistant depression. It is also fundamental to the production of energy, electrolyte balance, and is considered the main contributor to heart disease when it is deficient.

Just like body temperature, the firing rate of neurons is tightly regulated. Excitotoxicity is when the neurons get too ‘hot’, die, release toxins and cause inflammation. Magnesium, a very common and prevalent deficiency, helps neurons stay ‘cool’. There are other factors but this is one of the more fundamental causes of neuronal overexcitation. Magnesium is demonstrated to reduce depression and anxiety.
A lot of emphasis is placed on calcium intake and consumption of dairy is often high and fortification is routine. Magnesium is necessary for the assimilation of calcium and without sufficient magnesium the level of calcium in the blood will fall — as parathyroid hormone is reduced presumably to safeguard electrolyte balance. Unopposed calcium is a main contributor to excitoxicity, heart disease, and miscarriage. Excess calcium makes magnesium deficiency worse and will not strengthen bones or teeth, but contribute to neurological, cardiovascular, endocrinal, skeletal and muscular problems.
Another factor to consider is the impact of copper. High levels have been associated with psychiatric disorders as well as aggression. Chromium is considered its main antagonist.
Some forms of nutrients are not advised: Chromium/Zinc/Magnesium/etc. ‘aspartate’, ‘glutamate’ or ‘picolinate’.

I would also generally place an afterword,

A lot of medical research is directed toward the impact of nutrients on physiology, yet it is essentially illegal to market them as treatments or cures. Novel compounds may be formulated and marketed which rely on this research. These products may not be as effective and may have side effects, but they may nonetheless become legal. I am not a doctor or medical professional. If you would like to access more of my research it is available here:


W, 18.9.13, 12:20+

As for the recent Navy Yard incident I was able to communicate concerns and relevant info over the past few weeks. As early as Sept. 5th, I had outlined an event similar to Ft. Hood, likely concluding that, in contrast, it wouldn’t be ideologically Islam-oriented. This particular commentary I gave to a military service member with the recommendation to report it to others. I was a bit distracted otherwise and noticed more detachment than usual – though I suppose my recent increase in attempts at informing others of my activity significantly contributed to this. Of relevance therefore are my recent tweets: @angeloweitz

Afterword: In general, my summaries may lack details due to political, theological, personal, etc. considerations. For example, I had provided the insight that the perpetrator was Buddhist on Sept. 5th in a similar manner as I had informed, during the 911 call of Oct. 2012, that the perpetrator(s) would likely be Chechen. Aside from such detail, there may be significant commentary as well, for which I have created another post “Additional Notes HCU” which is yet private.


Visit also Health and Caution (Update) 12.





In Uncategorized on June 10, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Brief and/or Incomplete Summary of Prophetic Experiences Pertaining To the Safety of Others [& Related to Government Authorities*]

1) Portent for 9/11 terrorist attack while being treated for psychiatric disorder at a mental health facility. Initial concern for prophetic role in [some sort of] attack occurred during/after relationship separation. Silence, in accordance to religion/revelation, was maintained and others requested care. Refusal of oral medication led to injections in arms and glutes. Revelation became clearer and role more defined and accepted. I attempted to gain complete analysis prior to discussing [it] with others. However, during blood draw, some employees mocked me (one stationed in front of me, holding my arms; another doing the draw; and a third issuing a statement, “Angel of Death,” in my direction from a distance of approximately 3-4 m) and this effected a change in my drive to communicate with others based, at least in part, on concurrent revelation. No follow-up, recognition, or acknowledgment from others about, what may have appeared to be, the coincidences surrounding my care and, as of then, recent events.
Place of occurrence: San Joaquin Mental Health Clinic (Stockton, CA).
Approximate date: 04-2001

2) Following religious event similar to suicide attempt (via consumption of toxic plant seeds), a revelation of future events and their parameters and cross-reference with certain Old & New Testament scripture. Concerning primarily, the death of 2 individuals; the approximate date and death toll of a tsunami; the hurricane(s) of N.O.[, et al.], U.S.A. Upon request for feedback, counseling, acknowledgment, and/or communication, there was no response; neither was I contacted at any later date by any party concerning this or prior events.
Place of occurrence: San Joaquin General Hospital (French Camp, CA).
Approximate date: 09-2004

Note: During a visit to a dental hygiene clinic at UOP in Stockton, I reaffirmed, to at least one student, the basic parameters of revelation #2 and my concern for the safety of U.S. citizens and whether access to information would be made available. After witnessing the destruction within the communities, the preventable casualties, the lack of acknowledgement from medical, political, legal, or news-oriented entities, and the immediate lack of acknowledgment from peers; an incident of [interpretable] stress-induced self-inflicted injury to the brain occurred.

[A corollary is that the excursion and awareness in San Francisco (discussed elsewhere) occurred approximately in March 2003.]

3) A revelation, initially primarily mimed, concerning the eventual attack on certain Amish female schoolchildren. Information provided included approximate number of victims and types of injuries, as well as basic description, mental state, and arms status of perpetrator. Also, an attempt was made at establishing scriptural relevance and clarifying some potential misconceptions. I received no feedback or acknowledgment from any legal entity. Also, witnesses did not address me about it later, and when one was questioned [by me], a position of bewilderment was taken.
Place of occurrence: ~Baker St., Stockton, CA.
Approximate date: 10-2006

4) A revelation pertaining to the safety of an individual with Down Syndrome. The revelation was relayed to Hispanic immigrant laborers and some miming occurred in the process. The laborers did not respond to me about the incident during or after the relay. Neither was I consulted after the death of the individual for whom the revealed and relayed information would have provided protection. Scripture and religion were among the related topics discussed. An attempt to decipher relevance for the event and its hypothetical outcome was made. Also, a scenario, involving politics, (yet in regard to religious standing and implications), was also discussed.
Place of occurrence: Private residence in Holt, CA.
Approximate date: 2007

5) A revelation pertaining to the safety of, primarily, an African-American youth. The revelation occurred during an outing with a Hispanic female and was also reaffirmed at a not-so-much-later date during a phone call with the same individual. The political effect of the outcome of an unmitigated situation was evaluated and the insight relayed to the individual. By the time of this revelation, I [tentatively] presumed surveillance was sufficient to capture comments, whether made in open or over telecommunication devices. No feedback about incident was received from local authorities though I suspected that they would be notified. The witness and I often still encounter each other at a local store. No attempt has been made to discuss the situation with her on my part.
Place of occurrence: Park of a Public Library in Tracy, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: Prior to presidential election of 2008.

6) A revelation pertaining to the safety of a famous musician performed in the presence of, not only young children, but also a small group of individuals at attendance of a winter gathering. The relayed information was discussed in relation to certain other events, and an attempt to establish relevance for the present individuals and situation was made. No feedback was received at that time, neither did anyone approach me to contact me about it later.
Place of occurrence: Private residence in Tracy, CA.
Date of occurrence: Late December, 2008.

7) A revelation pertaining primarily to the safety of a Hispanic female child. A depiction of events, both verbal and gestural, was made available to another individual of whom it was requested that the information be relayed to local Police. As with other revelations, other events were depicted at the same time as well. Awareness of location of victim’s residence, as well as depiction of race, birth order, and age were made available; along with a description (age, sex, race, residence, relationship to victim, etc.) of the [eventual] perpetrator and discussion of probable motivations (i.e. history of rape, personal, political and/or religious issues, etc.) was also made available. An attempt was also made to establish scriptural and/or religious relevance for the events. No feedback or confirmation of relay was made. As is generally the case, the witness of the revelation does not remark about it any time during the process.
Place of occurrence: Private residence in Tracy, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: April 2009.

8) A revelation pertaining to the safety of many soldiers and yet focused primarily on the safety of the unborn child of one soldier. After an increased uncertainty about the amount of knowledge possessed by the general populace following previous revelations, and further uncertainty about the legalities pertaining to the treatment I, and others, have received; I wrote about this experience online at a religious-based forum,, under the name, “Angelo Michael”. I related the general parameters of the revelation and included some additional insight. I did not receive much, if any, direct feedback about the incident at all; rather only for my insight, and I was later banned from the site for an apparent[-ly unrelated] violation of site policy.
Due to the misrepresentations of my views by certain members of the site concomitant with the permissiveness of the site and its history of the use of libelous remarks, I requested that my comments be removed (though primarily because of the absence of, or restricted access to the/ my accompanying disclaimer which I feel is necessary in the environment — not only of the conversations there, but also for the global community)**.
The witness to this revelation was a minor (~?15-18) and apparently in a state of [mild] shock. I requested thru gestures to an accompanying professional that they should communicate with him as well as depicting basic information of the revelation to that professional before leaving the area. No confirmation or attempt at cross-communication has been made according to this event, at this time, (according to my awareness), either.
Place of occurrence: American Legion Hall (During time of use for Red Cross blood donations), Tracy, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: November 2009.

9) A revelation pertaining to the safety of the Pontiff of Rome. This revelation was initially revealed to a minor at a Holiday gathering. I requested and promoted their participation in delivering the information to another adult (i.e. the host[ess]). A brief explanation was given to the minor of certain religious parameters that may make the process more efficient if they participated. Initial discussion with minor centered around internet site development and use, and revelation occurred while viewing certain responses to my comments at — (if current recollection is correct)***. No [formal] feedback from church or state authorities has been received, neither have I received much, if any, feedback from those in attendance at, or hosting, the gathering; nor have I [intentionally] initiated continued discussion of the event with the minor(s) involved.
Place of occurrence: Private residence in Tracy, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: Late December, 2009.

10) A revelation pertaining to the safety of individuals and employees of America, and of the mental state and plan of action of a disgruntled citizen. This revelation occurred while attending a dental visit at UOP Dental Clinic, and I referenced previous incidents — (as I often do, and in a manner so as to necessitate the transfer of information to an authority) — and delivered the concluded information of the perpetrator using a small aircraft to attack a government-oriented building. No feedback was received from others at the clinic at any time, and my care there was interrupted by misinformation surrounding availability of procedures. Care was discontinued before eventual occurrence of attack.
Place of occurrence: UOP Dental Clinic, Stockton, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: January or February 2010.

Update pertaining to Revelation # 10:

During the time between the initial revelation of events at the dental clinic and the eventual occurrence of the attacks, I [accidentally] hit a child on the head with a soccer ball. (I had been demonstrating a style of kick that involved trapping the ball between the feet and flipping it up over the back by jumping with it[, primarily as an attempt to redirect the use of excessive force by others]). The child (approx. 5 years old) fell to the ground and was disoriented a bit upon standing. I stopped the play and took the ball and threw it in the air and [clownishly] let it hit me on the head. It was painful^ and I noticed I had not accurately taken into consideration the weight of the [deflated] ball previously. I asked the child if he would like to stop and, perhaps because he was the youngest in a group of mostly males, he declined and decided to continue. I continued to hold the ball and intervene in the continued play as I discussed with the children (Ages ~5-15) about the nature of brain trauma and the importance of first aid. I asked one of the older children, who was familiar with my involvement in revelations and political events and had participated previously (Pontiff’s security/Revelation #9), to take the child to its mother and explain what had happened and my recommendations of first aid. I had also briefly explained to this individual that I was anticipating a future event and was having difficulty because of the trauma I had induced on myself (I had begun to feel as though I had caused bleeding or swelling in my brain as well as an increased need for vigilance in [religious/civic] duty).

The similitude of appearances of the child whom the ball hit and America’s President had made me wonder if I had repressed some resentment of his, as of then, handling of the revelation(s), or if I had an issue with accepting the nature of his indirect approach to communication (as it had seemed plausible to me that his reference to root canals in his presidential address was an indication of awareness of the event — though also [potentially] intended as a public sneer at my inability to afford or understand the options available to me, or to effect a favorable outcome during similar events previously). Moreover, the stress of anticipation, not only potentially having lowered zinc levels and created and exacerbated certain conditions, but also may have made me less cautious than previously, and yielded an additive effect to the existing stresses involved in monitoring children and adolescents and mediating the public perception of my identity.

I walked away to try to calm myself at the time I had asked the child to be taken to its mother. When I came back, I noticed that the child was still actively playing with the older kids and seemed to be doing well. Also, I made a note of the fact that the activities he was engaging in (particularly playing catch with a football) were difficult for me to watch because it reminded me that my notions of safety and security were sometimes ill-adjusted to the playground, and also because I was still apprehensive about the previous incident (i.e. ball hitting child’s head) and partially disoriented from expectation (i.e. affect of [response to] revelation).

11) A revelation pertaining to the safety of certain military personnel, the then President of Poland, and certain other parameters. Information was relayed to an Office Manager at a dentist’s office. Recommendations of informing the Police were made by me to the Office Manager before leaving the office. Event occurred after a misunderstanding of appointment time and, more distantly, an incident of [interpretable] misconduct of certain office professionals.
Place of occurrence: Dental Office in Tracy, CA.
Approximate date of occurrence: A few days to a week prior to the death of Poland’s President

[Update: Other events include relaying information pertaining to the 2011 Japan tsunami (which occurred primarily in November 2010 and February/March 2011, to at least two individuals, and with the request to inform others/officials); and relaying information about the April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake, to the same individual/office manager of “11)” above, a few days prior to its occurrence. For these events, as well as for many of those depicted above, there is more information available at various other posts at]

Statement/ Conclusion:

According to the nature of the response to these experiences, and/or the lack thereof, I am relaying this information, (which presumably may already be in possession of by the I.C.C.). Also, I have been illustrating some concerns I have had for the nation and/or people of Israel in correspondences to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I will also be including those emails^^ as well.

* Initial revelation pertaining to a motor-vehicle accident occurring 02/15/95 and involving myself was received on 2/14-15/95, and only later, after primary relevance (i.e. accident occurrence) expired, was related to medical personnel (which may have initially led to, affected, or contributed to my psychiatric care).

** Reference accompanying document [1] /section.

*** All information is related to the best of my memory and ability at the present time and/or without the careful analysis of data (such as appointment dates and event occurrences) that may be available to me and/or others.

^ I am rather confident that I have Multiple Sclerosis to some degree with the accompanying lesions on my [already injured] brain and spine. This is due primarily to my intolerance of heat and an analysis of the the nutrient depletions that can lead to or exacerbate MS (zinc/glutathione/metallothionein, vitamin D) and an awareness that my situation was inducing those deficiencies. I am currently researching and utilizing nutritional therapies to help address the issues of stress and nutrient depletions. In part to help reduce the stress of the remarks of America’s President, as well as for personal and religious reasons, I have written America’s First Lady a letter.

^^ Reference accompanying document [2] /section.

Document 1 (edited):

The following is a summary of my posts at the thread, (as in regard to the original post).

Original Post:

[The original post dealt with the concept of being “God’s Chosen People”, perhaps in regard to which groups of people were most entitled to the label/claim. A summary of my responses (I had written a reply that received quite a lot of [unanticipated] criticism and misinterpretation) follows below.]

Compilation/ Edit/ Clarification:


Being “God’s chosen people” has often brought with it an inherent right, and/or obligation, to commit genocide. Also, the maintenance of racial purity [, to differing degrees,] is often inferred. If, by asking if the Jews are still God’s chosen people, one intends to assess whether they [should] still have the right to engage in genocide; I would be inclined to say, “No.” And, as for whether they should, or shouldn’t, be allowed (by Law) to marry indiscriminately: I don’t know.

Yet, for Christians to assume the role of “God’s ‘new’ chosen people” without making it clear that, in that assumption[/assertion], there is no threat to the Jews — for which [, in my opinion,] a strong inference is made of[/for] the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament — then, in essence, the reference to the state of “chosen-ness” has less to do with grace, favor, or righteousness; and more to do with a right to arms, exemption from punishment, and an establishment of an intention [of harm].

Note To the Audience:

The intention of my/the posts, in both initial and edited form, has been to elucidate the notion that being perceived as, “God’s chosen people”, could somehow be linked with the right, and/or obligation, to commit genocide; and the intention of the posts has not been an advocacy, stimulus, or justification, for those types of actions or activities.

Apparently for the content of [some of] my posts, some [. . .] have felt/found it necessary, obligatory, and/or acceptable, to attack my personal motivation and/or [perceived] spiritual orientation.

From what I can assess at this time, these actions are couched in a [deliberate] misinterpretation of my words, a misrepresentation of my [recorded] views, an unwarranted extrapolation of [inferred] content from my posts, and [perhaps,] an [aberrantly motivated] accusation of my integrity.

I do not feel, at this time, that the concept(s) I was/were attempting to address with my posts has/have been adequately addressed at this thread previously.

For these reasons, I view many of the attacks my comments, and character, are/have receiv(-ing/ed) as an attempt to stifle the expounding, or categorizing, of my views.

For the record, the views I expressed in my original post(s) at this thread were often intended as concise, and yet accurate, summaries of certain scriptures; and do not necessarily reflect my own personal views.

Some of theses scriptures, relative to their accompanying “summaries”, I have included below:

“Yet, for Christians to assume the role of “God’s ‘new’ chosen people” without making it clear that, in that assumption, there is no threat to the Jews — for which, in my opinion, a strong inference is made of the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament — then, in essence, the reference to the state of “chosen-ness” has less to do with grace, favor, or righteousness; and more to do with a right to arms, exemption from punishment, and an establishment of an intention [of harm].”

The context of this statement is intended to correspond with content in the New Testament. Also, to how that content may be interpreted by others (e.g., via inferences/references to Old Testament scripture(s), and/or the [recorded] notion of the reciprocity of retribution).

A basis for the statement, “– for which, in my opinion, a strong inference is made of the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament –“, is the parable* contained in,
Matthew 21:33-46.

According to my assessment of the aforementioned scripture, the notion of the reciprocity**, and “fullness”***, of sin is [, at least,] interpretably inferred.

* Also recorded in Luke 20 and Mark 12.

** Reference Numbers 33[:50-56].

*** Reference Genesis 15[:16].

In an attempt to counter some of the personal attacks made by certain posters at this thread/site, I have elaborated upon my initial assessment of certain scriptures.

I had initially summarized scriptural concepts toward the intention of bringing to light some inferences (contained therein) that could, in my opinion, reasonably be attributed with the assigning of the title, “God’s chosen people”.

My posts have met with considerable, and communal, criticism; and attempts were made to discredit the validity of my intentions, merit, integrity, [spiritual] orientation, and disclaimer.

From what I understand, the Bible often refers to retribution, genocide, and racial purity.

It is my opinion that certain anti-Semitic, and anti-Islamic, (as well as other), groups/individuals often draw conclusions, develop inspirations, and cultivate motivations from interpretations of [certain portions of] scripture.

I am not now, nor previously, justifying those/these [types of] actions.

I do not endorse genocide as a means of solving societal, religious, or personal problems; nor do I otherwise support, advocate, or endorse genocide.

It is, however, still my understanding that, in and of themselves, certain scriptures do promote and endorse genocide.

I do not intend to make any further apologies for this assessment [at this thread].

It appears that my post(s) may still be being misunderstood.

Because of the accrued accusations against me, my character, etc., and the challenges that those accusations bring me; I find it difficult to explain, in detail, how my words are being misrepresented by the various interpretations of them.

Perhaps it would be helpful to rephrase the initial statement(s).

However, it may be unproductive to do so at this time.

Also, the accru(-ed/ing) accusations discourage me from doing so.

I would like to request that the issuing of defamatory, slanderous, and/or libelous remarks about my post(s) stop; [at least] until I have an opportunity to finish clarifying the concerns that have been brought up.

It is a choice to fulfill the request, or not; and no threat is there-, or here-, -by intended, expressed or implied.

At this time, it seems there may have been an initial, (and concurrent), taking-of-offense by a misevaluation of how my statements are structured; and therefore, the emphasis, and meaning, of the statement(s) may not be clear to all at the present time.

Perhaps it might help to illustrate the gravity of the concern, that I had initially brought up, by referencing yet other scripture(s).

1 Samuel 15 contains both an order, (made by God), to commit genocide, to the point of annihilation, upon a certain group of people (Amalekites), for the purpose of requiting acts that were perpetrated many generations previously; as well as personal ramifications for, at least in part, not completing, as it were, the genocide.

Also, a system of election, or definition of a state of “chosen-ness”, is simultaneously discussed/promoted; and the failed/uncompleted [retributive] genocide may have played a significant role in those processes.

However, it is important to note that, [at least] in my opinion, the emphasis of the scripture is upon the necessity for obedience to God’s
word(s)/commandments, rather than upon the morality of [retributive] genocide per se.

Moreover, in accordance with my observation that, (not necessarily according to the will of Christ, and perhaps solely in my opinion), [that,] in the New Testament many scriptural inferences* are made about the similarity of the actions of the Jews toward Christ (and/or Christians), and the unjustified oppression of [the nation of] Israel by [the nation of] his brother Esau (as recorded in the Old Testament); and in accordance with [some of] the origins of my concern(s) (referenced above), and their potential application, if only via perversion of intention [of scripture(s)], have I issued my comments at this thread.

* (I may expound upon, or categorize, as it were, these observations for clarification later [at (an)other thread(s)].)

It is important to note that the [some] have, in my opinion, misrepresented my statements by insufficiently demarcating their quotations of them.

For example, I never made the statement, “there is no threat to the Jews — for which a strong inference is made of the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament” [, per se].

This, in my estimation, is a fabrication of an excerpt of a sentence that I constructed which, in it’s entirety, I interpret to be self-explanatory, appropriately relevant, and respectful [, now, with the addition of editing, notes, and/or references; if not also when initially published].

The best explanation/definition I can/have come up with for this behavior is “syntactic plagiarism”, and/or a misrepresentation of the content of my work.

It would be a different situation if [people] were/had not attribut(ing/ed) ulterior, and/or un-dialogued, thought(s), orientation(s), and/or
intention(s) to me, and/or my words.

In my opinion, one should be more careful in placing [accurate] punctuation marks for indicating that their quote is a[n] [incomplete] reference of my work.

Here is an example of an, in my opinion, acceptable quote:

“[…] there is no threat to the Jews — for which a strong inference is made of the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament — […]”

And yet, though punctually correct, the statement does not accurately reflect my views in its truncated form. Moreover, it leaves out pertinent information necessary for the continuity, and/or context, of, (and therefore the original intention of), the quoted statement.

I would therefore say that this statement, and/or quote, is nonsense. That it, (in and of itself), is unclear as to the meaning, and/or intention, of its composer; and only reflects the desires of the quoter — in this case, perhaps to misrepresent my views in an attempt to justify an opinion or statement made about me.

Since addressing the [potentially deliberate] misinterpretation(s) of my statements has taken so much time and consideration; I have not focused as much on the continuation/development of my statement(s) as I would have liked.

The concepts I have declared and expounded were intended to lead to the conclusion of the necessity* for, and glorification of, [The Lord’s] ([P]/p)rayer**; as well as warn of the inherent dangers involved in, what may be considered, the misapplication of “Sola Scriptura”.

* Reference Mark 9 [:29]

** Reference Matthew 6 [:9-13]

Due to the sufficient amount of slander and libel that has accrued toward my posts, views, concerns, character, etc.; and due to the fact that I am experiencing difficulty coping with the accusations; and since my views are, in my opinion, continually being misrepresented; and also that I have been made to feel unwelcome at this thread; I am going to, primarily for the sake of discouraging [further] unwarranted attacks against the character of others, discontinue posting at this thread.

In the interest of redirecting some portions of the conversation that may have arisen from, what I understand to be, a mis-interpretation of my views, intentions, and/or comments; I would like to make an open invitation to my thread, (posted earlier),

“Christianity v. Anti-Semitism and/or Christianity v. Anti-Islamism”:


I have mentioned in other posts (at other threads) here about my struggles with Traumatic Brain Injury.

Among these struggles has been the confrontation of challenges in expressing myself and processing emotions. Also, my ability to comprehend, in a time dependent manner, is impaired.

I have been working on my ability to communicate my views accurately and respectfully. Also, I had intended to reference my viewpoint with scripture. I apologize for any misunderstanding(s).

I may not, at this time, [fully] understand the basis of the accusations against me; nor may I [fully] understand why the content of my post(s) is receiving so much criticism.

Some of the replies in regard to my post(s) are offensive to me [– because it appears they are intended as attacks against my personal motivations –]; yet I find it difficult to respond to them, or to clarify my viewpoint further at this time.

I apologize for any delay in my response and clarification.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the added challenge of processing the emotions that, in my opinion, are attributable to the malicious, and/or defamatory, use of slander and/or libel contained in some posts directed at me.

However, I do not hereby advocate, endorse, or promote the further use of similar tactics for the intention of benefiting brain-injured, or otherwise challenged, persons.

I would like to bring to remembrance the words of Jacob, when speaking with his brother Esau about the necessity for safety, contained in
Genesis 33:
13: And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.
14: Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

For those of you who may not have accessed my disclaimer previously I will add it here for clarification:


Scripture verses/excerpts, and/or [my] comments, statements, arguments, claims, references, or inferences, etc., are intended for personal reflection, and/or [non-violent] spiritual/religious inspiration; and are not intended as a justification, or stimulus, for murder, or any other
sin(s), and/or crime(s).

This disclaimer is intended to be valid for all of my posts at this site; for any content, inference, claim, or statement of mine that is quoted or referenced in another’s reply; for any of my posts made on any [other] site [for which I have provided a link to/for on this site]; also, for any posts, or replies, made at this message wall by myself [and/or others — (if applicable)]; and, as in regard(s) to [my] intention(s), for any content made available via a link that I have provided on this [, or any other,] site.

Moreover, this disclaimer is not intended as a substitute, or replacement, for any other disclaimer found at this, or any other, site; (n)or for any disclaimer pertaining to, or in relation to, any content made available via a link that I have provided on this, or any other, site; irrespective of the origin(s) of that [other] disclaimer.

Furthermore, I do not [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, this site; nor do I [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, any [other] site, or content, that I, or any(one/thing) else, have referenced, and/or provided a link to/for, on this site; neither do I [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, any [other] content, member, user, editor, replier, et al., at this, or any other, site [for which I have provided a link to/for on this site].

*Subject to periodic change(s), development(s), and/or update(s).


Being “God’s chosen people” has often brought with it an inherent right, and/or obligation, to commit genocide. Also, the maintenance of racial purity [, to differing degrees,] is often inferred. If, by asking if the Jews are still God’s chosen people, one intends to assess whether they [should] still have the right to engage in genocide; I would be inclined to say, “No.” And, as for whether they should, or shouldn’t, be allowed (by Law) to marry indiscriminately: I don’t know.

Yet, for Christians to assume the role of “God’s ‘new’ chosen people” without making it clear that, in that assumption, there is no threat to the Jews — for which a strong inference is made of the necessity of their annihilation in the New Testament — then, in essence, the reference to the state of “chosen-ness” has less to do with grace, favor, or righteousness; and more to do with a right to arms, exemption from punishment, and an establishment of an intention [of harm].

After careful reflection upon the content and intention of the above statement; I have found [certain portions of] the statement to be misleading. In my opinion, this is due to word/syntax choice.

In hindsight, the grammatical/syntactical choices/corrections I would have liked to have made are as follows:

Being “God’s chosen people” has often brought with it an inherent right, and/or obligation, to commit genocide. Also, the maintenance of racial purity [, to differing degrees,] is often inferred. If, by asking if the Jews are still God’s chosen people, one intends to assess whether they [should] still have the right to engage in genocide; I would be inclined to say, “No.” And, as for whether they should, or shouldn’t, be allowed (by Law) to marry indiscriminately: I don’t know.

Yet, for Christians to assume the role of “God’s ‘new’ chosen people” without making it clear that, in that assumption, there is no threat to the Jews — for which, in my opinion, a strong inference is made for the necessity* of their annihilation in the New Testament –** then, in essence, the reference to the state of “chosen-ness” has less to do with grace, favor, or righteousness; and more to do with a right to arms, exemption from punishment, and an establishment of an intention [of harm].

* It is important to note that I had intended to indicate that the inference(s) create(s) the illusion of a necessity that does not actually exist. However, my initial word/syntax choice may not have accurately/thoroughly indicated this concept; and, quite to the contrary, may have inferred that the necessity exists independent of inference(s). I apologize for the misunderstanding.

** Alternate syntactic structures of excerpt:
a) — for which, in my opinion, a strong inference for the necessity* of their annihilation is made in the New Testament —
b) — for which, in my opinion, strong inferences for the necessity* of their annihilation are made in the New Testament —
c) — for which, in my opinion, strong inferences are made for the necessity* of their annihilation in the New Testament —

Reference also [what are now, (at the time of posting this reply),] [my] replies # 215, 216, and 217 at this thread.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.


I have noticed that [some have] taken issue with the relevancy of my posts at this thread, and I will try to explain the basis of my views as relative to the above quote.

In addition, I would like to state that, in my opinion/from my understanding*, being “God’s chosen people” does not necessarily pertain solely to either Jews or Christians; nor necessarily to a mix, or union, of them.

Perhaps due to this conviction/understanding, along with my desire to first address some concerns I had for the way [my] response(s) to the above post/poll might be viewed/interpreted; have I taken it upon myself to post at this thread.

I was, and am, aware that the subject matter of my posts deals with concepts, themes, and/or materials, that some may be sensitive to.

Nevertheless, I felt it was necessary for me, (in accordance with my reputation, history, claims, etc., and perspective), to address the post/poll in the manner that I have.

Now, pertaining to relevance, I did find that the word “obsolete” in the [original post/quote] inferred the potential for an aberrant intent; if only via condescension. Moreover, in my opinion, the potential ramifications of these types of labels are, at leat in part, what motivated me to address the concepts of retribution and genocide.

For clarification, I do not find Judaism obsolete; nor am I averse to Islam per se.**

Also, since my religious views are often formed in accordance with my experiences; and since the recording, and accepting, of these experiences (by others) is in, what can be considered, a state of flux; I have perhaps had difficulty maintaining the [appearance of] relevancy that is being demanded.

* Reference Isaiah 19:23-25 and Leviticus 19:32-34;
also, 1 Samuel 2:27-35, Joshua 5:13-15, and Psalm 91.

** Some of the principal scriptures I draw upon to justify these views are: Jeremiah 35 and Ezekiel 16. I understand that the application of the latter (Ez. 16), for the intended purpose of illustrating a relationship between faiths, may be offensive to some.

Here are some of the offensive/ threatening/ libelous remarks that were allowed to remain posted for, what I consider to be, an amount of time that would indicate negligence [. . .]:




Here are some scriptures, pertaining to my religious views, [and in regard to personal reservation]:

Exodus 21:
28: If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29: But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30: If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31: Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32: If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Matthew 5:
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.



[A corollary is that the above scenario occurred not so long prior to the Haiti earthquake, and that a similar incidence of an attacking of my character was made prior to the occurrence of the Samoa tsunami. During both times I had a vague awareness of the events, and I began to conclude that the process of revelation could at times be compared to a competition wherein others may distract and/or assist you.]

Document 2:

I have been attempting to communicate with the government of U.S. for some time. There has been no formal response to me, and it seems that the sentiment of their non-cooperation is spreading thru the populace — even into the medical, professional, and legal sectors. Often, the stimulus for the attempt at communication has been, what to me is considered, a prophetic revelation concerning the safety of others. I have not been able to attain any information on rights, restrictions, or civic responsibilities upon request. According to the treatment I have received, and the effect thereof, and also according to the victimization of others; I often view the politicized treatment of Israel[i military activity] as a means of subliminally, or overtly, assigning or attributing blame for any persecution, or death, resulting from a lack of communication and/or cooperation from U.S. government and/or populace to Israel and/or Jews. Also, I am unaware of the positions of many religions on the validity, or perceived spiritual orientation, of the aforementioned [interpretably] prophetic scenarios. I apologize for any inconvenience and would like to remind of my continued support of Israel (as a nation and/or as a people) and Judaism.


In a previous message I commented on a situation between me and America’s government. This statement is, in many ways, a continuation of the previous one.
In reading about the recent issues with the Naval blockade, I noticed an interpretably deliberate mentioning of America as being, “Israel’s closest ally.” Even in the absence of this propaganda, I have often found it difficult to distinguish America’s behavior from that of it’s allies; or to be always thoroughly convinced that America’s behavior is, as it were, autonomous.
Sometimes in life, certain facts can alleviate certain doubts and allow for more rest, or at least new insight.
I, of course, do not know who America confers with in making it’s decisions for it’s treatment of me and any surrounding issues (and/or persons); but it does appear that a global attempt has been established at witholding certain information, and so I often feel more isolated than otherwise.
I generally do not feel intimidated by any such behavior because of my religious convictions; yet, however, I do often have concern for the ramifications of the behavior of others, (whether individual or communal in origin).
Also, I find difficulty in deciphering, understanding, or relating to the justifications some must inevitably possess for their actions.
As I have accrued certain traumas in my life, I inevitably consider my mental capacity and the implications it might have for those seeking to conceal facts surrounding certain events, or to effect a certain outcome during, or from, them.
For, it is often in life that contestants are matched according to some criteria, and that rules, regulations, and limitations are prescribed for the events so as to allow for their acceptance in civilization.
Yet, in regards to my experiences, not only have the boundaries of my religious expectations of individuals been surpassed, but also the political, and/or ethical ones as well.
And so I often find myself concluding that it must be a unique experience to endure the treatment I receive, (indeed as all suffering is), and I also often feel less obliged to complain and more inclined to overlook any concerns I might have for the ramifications of the misconduct.
So, in this regard, I also extend an apology to Israel and Judaism. For, it is not that Christianity is averse to Judaism, but that “Christians” often are. And the inevitable desire of the criminal to avoid culpability is perhaps more easily facilitated with the victimization of another; and often the most realizable prey is the one already victimized and known for this role — even if the projected sentiment has often been of disdain, or remorse, for those circumstances.
And yet one can witness the ease to which regret for an occurrence can turn to regret for a re-occurrence, even if enacted by the same party.
Therefore, I have concluded, previously and concurrently, that an adequate amount of caution should be maintained in allying with, not only (yet most concerningly) America, but with any “Christian” (whether with or without quotation marks) entity, at least for the duration of the circumstances surrounding the sequestering of data pertaining to any [interpretably] prophetic works relayed thru me, and in preparation for the consequences of those choices.


I am writing today of the accruing sequestering of data concomitant with a reinforced appraisal of self-worth on the part of America, (as apparently endorsed by its allies), as well as of what could be attributed with their recent declarations of being “citizens of the world”, and “a [military force] for good.”

For, as it were, in the beginning of my declaring the injustices I perceived as inherent in America’s [mis]treatment of the peoples for which I had delivered information pertaining to their safety, and of what appears to me now to be a thorough genocide of a diverse global community along with a persistent denial of truth, I often correlated the relevance of those individuals and communities, (as well as myself), as a sort of Israel-like nation, if not [intended as] a decoy for it.

And, as would be expected of a people acting in this manner, the resulting declarations from America [and others] of a nature that quite contrasts the reality, should not seem altogether unanticipated.

However, according to the timing of some of America’s President’s most recent statements (i.e. occurring shortly after a heightened sensation of one of the effects of it’s persecutions of individuals), I am perhaps more encouraged than before to write of some of the concerns I have — and correlations I have formed — for the tenor of those [types of] declarations, presentations, and assumptions.

Perhaps most strikingly, those declarations and suppositions, occurring amid a constant and communal disapproval of Israeli[, and Hebrew,] policy and practice seems to be a more blatant inference to the often prophetically reported alliance of nations against [the nation of] Israel than I might have anticipated in the political arena until now. (Reference Zechariah 12, Joel 3[:3], et al.)

However, it was in a [~]discussion with Sarah Palin concerning her Facebook posts concerning a journalist, and my opinion as to the inappropriateness of her attack on the sincerity of his character because of certain New Testament scriptures (i.e. Revelation 2:9), that I began to understand that perhaps the political arena was not as sensitive to this type of behavior as I have expected or hitherto noticed.

Unfortunately, perhaps most relevantly for the global community, as well as for the aspirations of justice and honor in diverse applications, I have found the global response(s) to my existence and experience(s) to be unsatisfactory and often derogatory.

Notwithstanding, I have had the privilege of having many experiences in my life that contribute to the preparation for this type of treatment, and my religious foundation is continually being reinforced and contributing to a greater sense of community — at least in my estimation and from my perspective. And yet, this also is perhaps the origin of my greatest concern: what are the ramifications, if any, for perpetrators of global communal injustices; and how might they be increased or worsened by a presumption of innocence or, perhaps more condemningly, a supposition of progress and participation in [authorized] salvation by those parties?


[Here are a series of emails I’ve sent to Palin’s PAC, I also generally share them with Pope Benedict and Benjamin Netanyahu. They are intended to aid in achieving an understanding of certain issues in culture, religion, and politics.] 

Correspondence is arranged in reverse order of compilation (in general); links/references may contain mature content:

Sarah Palin,

I remember, I think it was in “Toy Story”, there was like a potato head who said, “I feel a song comin’ on.” I thought it was pretty funny, and later opined that it would make a decent intro to a rap song.

It seems that it’s often the same thing in politics — that when crises occur, or when the foment of bitterness escalates, that politicians get a “feeling” as to how they want to influence the outcome of the events.

At times like these, where Obama or the democrats have clearly made a faux paus (at least for some cultures), I have often noticed that the usually overt and counter-productive opposition to Obama — often entailing racism, religious bigotry, and treason — is replaced with an ultimatum to finally “back” the President in his actions.

It inevitably becomes as though a people, or the nation, is going backwards instead of forwards. That the political opposition exists only to denigrate the character of a person, religion, or race, and not address the political aspects or actions of its opponent.

So also, it can be further contributed to the aforementioned analogy, that those with repressed racism, religious intolerance, etc., may “feel” an opportunity to abandon their reservations and engage in immoral conduct.

And although, John McCain has voiced support of Obama’s actions by pointing out the negligence of Egypt — and that may suffice for national support by him as he may not have engaged in derogatory behaviors similar to those of yourself and of FOX (though I wouldn’t know for sure) — it more than likely will not contribute to security or political success for yourself or others if the fitfulness of wanting something “now” is allowed to be evaluated for more than what it is.


Angelo M. Weitz


Sarah Palin,

Growing up I witnessed a lot of verbal abuse, and as for my own life and security, I experienced, (and therefor associated), verbal abuse with physical abuse.

Indeed it may often be the verbal abuse that makes the most enduring impact, as it may be more easily, or readily, re-played, than the physical abuse is re-lived.

In the atmosphere of the verbal, physical, etc. abuse I and others experienced, it was not acknowledged as such and was more accepted as less than it was, or as a fundamental right of one person over another.

At about the same time, I began to notice, and be exposed to, the vulgarity of pornography, and also to that more pornography-oriented style of rap music epitomized by artist like Too Short and the 2 Live Crew.

I also had an opportunity to hear an album by the Last Poets with a song called “N[…] Are Scared of Revolution” which mentioned the phrase “white thighs” which helped me understand some of the history and development of that kind of music.

As I began to become more acquainted with the nature of the music as being stereotypically unacceptable, but, perhaps according to its forthrightness, not necessarily as offensive as being personally attacked by peers, I began to perceive its potential for a therapeutic, if not solely culturally educational, effect.

One example of the more explicit songs that sarcastically, artistically, and blatantly attempted to expound the interrelationships of male and female, and which was and is also an inspiration in that it allowed women a voice in the song — which in and of itself, can be seen as a major contribution to the prevention and resolution of abuse toward women — is Too Short’s “Don’t Fight the Feeling”.

In my own artistic pursuits, I began to understand the importance of accepting the contributions of this type of music, and it was toward this aim that I composed, “Invite.”[*]

For, in as much as one can perceive a genial intent in another’s profanity, so also it may be easier to accurately relate the affect one desires through their own work.

Another example of a relevant song for the current situation surroundings others and myself has been Michael Jackson’s “Give Into Me.”

It is at times like these, and others, that I often interpret your response to Obama, or to situations in general, as lacking the ‘plasticity’ that may often be cultivated, at least for some issues surrounding race, by exposure to various forms of musicality and respect for its attending social influence and impact.


Angelo M. Weitz

[Update (9.4.12+): The lyric “Invite” (in “Archives” @ “08/07/10”) may have been most strongly influenced by Too Short’s “Pimp The Ho” and “Pimpology.” In addition, the references, in concert with my comments concerning the impact of Todd P.’s statements and expressions (ref. “OWNERSHIP” below), were likely intended to imply the [tenor of] the content of Amos 7; and to illustrate that a theological ‘inspiration’ may be present in the interpretably controversial works — thus lending to a redress of racism (and antisemitism) in a relevant cultural context. Another relevant composition is Too Short’s, “Cusswords.” Moreover, the breadth of Too Short’s positive/supportive influence and/or [continued] mentoring is perhaps more clearly elucidated by additional references to “Girl (Cocaine)” and “Don’t Ever Give Up.”]


Sarah Palin,

I got to watch your speech on TV, and I was able to repeat some of the sections for clarity and to view the whole speech at length.

It seemed rather an awkward pause before your use of, “bullet train,” and the FOX host later quotes that line and it just doesn’t sound good.

Maybe try using “fast track..,” I think it will make a big difference.

Also, I notice your appearances, or style, may benefit from improving.

Your hairstyle appears too “wolfy”, and its wideness is off-putting.

The diminishing chin, apparently contributed to progressive muscle tone loss in women,
also becomes exacerbated by the ill-advised hairstyling.

Your tone of voice is not modulated properly and too often seems unauthentic, whiny, and cynical.

The color red that you choose for your blazer is reminiscent of the scarlet of the “Whore of Babylon” — even more so after the aforementioned phrase.

I have speculated previously that your kookiness, for lack of another term, may be attributed to longstanding (but now reversed) Vitamin D insufficiency, and/or excessive iron consumption (as excessive metal often aggravates dementia).

But now, especially after Gifford’s trauma, I am compelled to nonetheless expect you to behave within certain criteria, and if they are not met, to [more often] conclude that it has not been your desire to do so.

Yet, at only 50 years old, and having just had a baby recently, and having medical insurance, it has yet remained a speculative concern that you may be deficient in some hormone that would allow you to behave more “appropriately.”

I noticed your allusions to “steroids” and wondered if you have a phobia of them,
but I suppose you are aware enough of them — but then you say the things you do, and act the way you do, and then I’m left guessing again.

But, from what I understand, the hormone DHEA is an antagonist to stress hormone (cortisol), and has been studied as an effective alternative to, and adjunctive treatment for, HRT.

Yet, as I was mentioning in my articles on autoimmunity, DHEA (unlike pregnenolone) does not convert into progesterone, which — perhaps primarily through its metabolite, allopregnanolone — may have a more prominent role in preventing dementia than the androgens and estrogens of DHEA.

In addition, DHEA is reported to have an over-stimulating affect on sexual desire, especially in females — though dosage adjustments may alleviate this side-effect; but pregnenolone is more often correlated with improved cognition and converts also into DHEA.

Moreover, there is a symptom often referred to as, “adrenal exhaustion,” that often accompanies excessive exercise, and the adrenal glands help compensate for the drop in estrogen accompanying menopause by secreting hormones themselves.

With Consideration,

A. M. Weitz

P. S.: Here are some links to some of the research I’ve mentioned:

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or a medical professional. Information provided is not intended as medical advice, nor do I attest to its originality, accuracy, safety, or efficacy.


Sarah Palin,

Just to make sure of the wolf analogy; your behavior, tenor, tone, and appearances all conjure the image of a wolf looking for its prey with the anxiety, anticipation, and bewilderment that is experienced when it can’t find it where it believes it should be.

Your red blazer also then becomes like Little Red Riding Hood’s coat, (i.e. the sheep’s clothing), and your familial status like the disguise of the wolf.


Sarah Palin,

I was thinking that your ability to connect effectively (and safely) with an audience is limited by your maintenance of an intense aversion to certain people — perhaps due to their views, actions, beliefs, etc. — and I suppose that, in my opinion, it is a luxury that can’t be afforded.

It seems to be that it would be in union with your [espoused] religious beliefs for you to understand that the Light of God shines on all; and I often think that you could benefit form actively seeking to increase your exposure to experiences you may not have a keen interest in — such as to the music or videos of artists that might have political views incompatible with yours — in order to establish, not only more tolerance, but also a greater ability to relate to others without offending them.

Here are some song videos I’ve selected for you:

[L. Ronstadt’s “Blue Train” (video of performance on news program)
Soul Asylum’s “Runaway Train” (music, picture(s) and lyrics)
Bob Dylan’s “Slow Train” (video of pictures and music)]

P. S. : In my opinion, a [small] woman who has an acceptable, or more optimal, modulation of tone of voice — whether she has had to work on it or not — is Dr. Lisa Masterson of “The Doctors”.

And I’ve heard other petite women that also have effective voices — and although at times it seems they’ve had to work at it, and that it is a compensation for their small stature, it nonetheless seems appropriate; and in your case, your apparent lack of skills, apparently attributable to insufficient effort, allows for the further analysis of America as being involved in political collusion, and that the collusion is mediated via incompetence.

Doubtless, few people, or nations, if any, will respect that.


Angelo M. Weitz


Sarah Palin,

Here are some more videos, all by the same artist, Leonard Cohen, who also, like Joe, is a Jew.

I have selected them because I feel that it might help you to accept the expression of differing views, as well as allow you to be able to experience some of their allure.

[“The Butcher” (music w/ picture)
“The Future” (‘official’ video)
“Democracy” (video from PBS ‘Live in London’)
“Joan of Arc” (user submitted video with images from a movie)]


Angelo M. Weitz


Sarah Palin,

I noticed also in your Reagan speech that you appeared to be considerably condescending toward Spain, and apparently is was to be again like a rallying call for Protestantism, and as a reference to the genocide inherent in your promotion of [Manifest] Destiny.

This effect infers the content of Obadiah too strongly IMO, and otherwise contributes to an image of being a gloating, or cheating, winner — even while you are not [completely] successful.

Moreover, there is considerable influence from, and adaptation to, the Latin and Spanish culture; and you tend to, not only overlook it, but assume that it is a fleeting thing, or that it will disappear with a more stable border. Yet, the realities of most popularity-dependent endeavors — of which politics would inevitably be one of — has been to embrace the bilingual, and cross-cultural, possibility with open arms. And, if not willingly, then as a necessary venue to success.

You don’t seem to understand or apply this concept well.

Personally, I think you may not have had enough meaningful experiences with this culture, and it appears that your fame and popularity are sufficing you and you feel that you don’t need to adapt to it.

Here are some videos that you might like to watch. They are all in Spanish, but some have English counterparts.

[D. Lovato’s “Lo Que Soy” (lyrics); J. Venegas’ “El Presente” (‘official’ video); Beyonce’s “Si Fuera Un Chico” (?video); E. Iglesias’ “Quizas” (‘official’ video).]


Angelo M. Weitz


Sarah Palin,

I have heard it often enough said that September 11th (2001) was “the darkest day in our nation’s history.”

According to recent events, the continued use of this or similar phrases, would not only be disrespectful, but also — by the disregarding of their inappropriateness (due to the slander and libel implied to, or imposed upon, those born on that day) — be indicative of a lack of consideration, not just for sentimentality, but for the necessity for adaptation.

It appears to me to be the prudent option to discontinue the use of these generalizations; and, in keeping with Barack’s concepts, this discretion would seem to be something “owed”.


Angelo M. Weitz


Sarah Palin,

The dichotomy which is often represented through politics, is also often represented in entertainment medias.

One example of the the political dichotomy that separated the implied, or supposed, racial cohesion of blacks was made available in “Right America Feeling Wronged”, when a black man was seen addressing a white female reporter with contempt for her actions at promoting the democratic agenda.

Another example is in the chronicling of a “rap feud” in Eazy-E’s “Real Mutha[…]’ G’s” — which also, like as for Too Short’s “Don’t Fight the Feeling”, I found influential and inspiring due to its admonishment of domestic abuse, or violence against women.

Here’s a link for the song, I feel it might help [you] in understanding, and developing, the appropriate approach to refuting a person’s views or actions without inculcating racism.
[link omitted]


Angelo Weitz


Here is an example of how syntax and diction can create an [undesirable] implied, or tandem, message.

Your post:


Your use of ‘fear’ seems to connote a) lack of confidence in yourself, others or democracy. b)an openness to indiscriminately confess, having occurred after [I] ‘believe’.

And then your attack of the “administration’s thinking” as being “wrong” lacks emphasis as it is now relegated more to the justification of your own fear and lack of confidence.

The gist of your statement then potentially becomes, “Although I have faith, it is not sufficient to accomplish anything (what I want), and I don’t know how else to say that what they are doing is wrong except that it’s not what I believe.”

Although it may seem minor, (and others may mock of the necessity for regulating diction), it is diction’s cumulative effect and impact that is important. And often a greater variety and variation in diction can help one maintain a “fresher” appearance that will prevent others from tiring of them.



Steadfast belief vs. inaccurate thought. It becomes no longer a choice of competing beliefs, but of doing the right thing.



Sarah Palin,

One more issue that I feel would contribute to security is the attenuation of your political and personal relationships with inflammatory figures such as G. Beck. Although it may be tempting to find consolation in the comradery of ‘victimization’ that is experienced by others — the predilection of many of your peers for the pleasures of mocking and its attending flagellations, (whether received therefor or a product thereof), will eventually erode any authenticity of your own sufferings from your allegiance and apparent support of those types of behaviors.
In addition, it would not be conducive to an image of power or dominance to show much more than an active indifference to their behaviors with an inherent implication of disapproval. And, the withholding of anything resembling interpretable true friendship or trust will help send the message of the effects of their behavior without having to presume to be able to control or stop it.
Although it is an unfortunate situation that those, and to a lesser degree yourself, have created with the collective tendency toward brashness before defeat and indiscretion as a means to enable success — it is nonetheless the atmosphere in which one would expect to find a leader. The one assuming that role can potentially mitigate the impact by, not only their abstinence from it (i.e. mocking, hypocrisy, inappropriateness, etc.), but their response to it.


A. M. Weitz



Sarah Palin,

Again, as pertaining to security — whether for yourself, your family, children (in general), for a nation, or internationally — my main hypothesis (as pertaining to you) is: That if your tenor and behavior increasingly reflect an honest effort, and if your response to threats don’t include over-acknowledging them, or acknowledging them in a attempt to justify your own behavior, nor so as to attempt to draw too much attention to unfair or bias treatment; then the security of yourself, your family, women and children (in general), as well as of nations shall be more easily maintainable.

As for the basis of the hypothesis, it may be more easy to explain as a correlation of nature for you. It may be redundant to explain that weakness, whether actual or interpreted, is often a signal of the opportunity for attack. And by avoiding appearing victimized (e.g. as a victim of bias), and by not alluding to intimidation from or dependence on, threats, then you would be able to maintain an image or facade of confidence that others will inherently be more prone to respect — not only for the calmness and confidence exuded, but also for the paradoxical unwavering resilience.

As for your tenor in your recent facebook post, it appears to be acceptable. Perhaps, in this regard, the phrase “bullet train” may have been more appropriately avoided.

In general, my interpretation of your political vantage is that you risk sounding too much like a “small-timer” that just doesn’t understand investment on a large scale. Moreover, your hackneyed references to Reagan appear to to break with the common (especially for the college educated) sense of variety in references, potentially compounding the aforementioned interpretation(s).


A. M. Weitz



EDIT: My initial feeling was that the intonation I would use at those times was sufficient to indicate my intention that those behaviors — potentially both therapeutic for the audience and me — would serve to futher harden the heart against God and reinforce the rebellion against the Law — if not concomitantly allow for insight into the futility, and frailty, of the behaviors.

“. . .the behaviors” appears to reference my own behaviors (i.e. “. . .those behaviors — “) when the intention is rather to indicate the rebelling and hardening of the heart (e.g. “. . .the futility, and frailty, of those choices.”).

Sarah Palin,

It became evident to me that religion and politics often intertwine, though the process of revelation as I experience it is not to endorse America or Democracy, yet it has nonetheless encompassed the lives of political figures.

One such instance was the political election of 2008. There came a time when I was confronted by some impudent people prior to the election and, due to the unusual state of their uncooperativeness, I became aware of the potential for revelation. The revelation was eventually a depiction of the naval standoff with Iran — but leading up to it I made political jokes and commentary to try to break the silence, and the strangeness, of the experience.

Another instant was more immediately before that election date, and I was speaking with someone whom I had known before and they also began to act strangely before me. And, as I began to speak, it became evident that a child would be victimized and this might affect the outcome of the political race. Due to my religious responsibilities I made sure to diligently report the matter with the accuracy which I possessed.

Another factor to my religious assessment was that it (the preceding) was essentially the way it was because of the necessity for security for your family, your children, and not necessarily to influence the political race — though that would be the expected outcome of unmitigated events.

It was in part according to this assessment that I undertook the task of communicating with you, and more specifically because I — either thru inspiration or intellect — felt that your tenor and conduct, although not blameworthy per se, might have had an impact in the necessity for the security measures; and I concluded that your awareness of my interpretation might be helpful for security in general.

According to my religious beliefs, the events in Arizona were to be expected. And yet I would have to conclude that, although I felt I did everything I could, that they were nonetheless as, if not more, preventable than other similar occurrences wherein information has been relayed.

But in accepting the revelatory awareness(es), I also accept the belief that when, and if, the attempts fail, that it is not destiny, nor is it an act of God’s will per se, but that is rather an attempt of Satan to dominate through the creation of an implication that faith is invalid, impractical, or hypocritical — an implication that is often fostered by ‘Christians’ as much as any other group of people. And yet this effect is not so much dependent on the actual events themselves, but on the response to them, and, at least according to my religious beliefs, how people respond to me.

In the wake of this tragedy I recall how I often responded in those strange situations preceding revelations. How I would claim, sarcastically, outrageously, and admittedly attempting comedically, to have ‘guys’ that do things for me and so on, and that that is how terrorism originates.

My initial feeling was that the intonation I would use at those times was sufficient to indicate my intention that those behaviors — potentially both therapeutic for the audience and me — would serve to futher harden the heart against God and reinforce the rebellion against the Law — if not concomitantly allow for insight into the futility, and frailty, of the behaviors.

And so it is often that when faced with the humanity of the victims, and having to, or having it, juxtaposed with the corrupt and seemingly — if not actually — Satanic response to my presence, I may often feel more of a heartwarming than a sorrow. For, I know that in God’s presence all victims will be safe from corruption; and also that, having the experience, belief, and awareness I have, that God’s love and understanding are present as I face my own death.

So it is that in so much of life there are challenges that are outward, (such as personal security), and challenges that are inward, (such as how we respond to threats); and, in this analogy (of security), perhaps it is easier to understand the interrelationship of the two types of challenges.


A. M. W.

[In hindsight, the development of the notion of having ‘guys’ do things [for me] may have been derived from several impetuses. I recall that the mocking at the blood draw occurred shortly before (?1-3 days) [learning of] my dad’s death, and intrinsically wondering if he had somehow infiltrated the man’s mind/spirit — either as a demonic or as an Elijah-like warner. In many ways, it was as the man was acting on my dad’s behalf. Thus, the interpretation that the airplane hijackers were assisting integrity and/or the defeat/subjugation of Satan[ism] was implied — though the main intended emphasis of the remarks was to communicate (e.g. via the inflection) the expected development and/or worsening of psychosis amid the treatment I received (if it were to be applied to others) in order to demonstrate its danger and impracticality.

Another motivation for the development of the satirical, comical and/or theological tactics was to facilitate the premature and/or destructive presumptions that others (who were in my estimate, unacceptably complacent) would make/were making about my spiritual and/or sexual orientation.

Another factor to the tenor of the article above is that I generally find Palin’s “Sarah-ness” to be representative of Paul’s pride and theological perversions. And this effect is not only exacerbated by the fact that the child victim was seemingly accepted as a ‘Sarah’ to another victim, but also by that my Poetry classmate’s name was ‘Sara[h]’* as well.

In addition, in relating about the revelation of the Iran Naval incident, I had brought to surface some memories of the woman (who was present with her boyfriend — both/all were not responding to simple questions, e.g. what is your name?. . . do you want to hurt children?) who had perhaps conceived a child by me. Indeed, this woman was never really [intended as] a Hagar equivalent or representative, like as to the [relevant] child had [perhaps] been intended to both represent Ishmael and Isaac — to some degree. In actuality, I had surmised this woman to perhaps be representative of Ephraim, with the other woman whom I had sexual relations with at 15 as Manasseh. The classmate then was symbolic of Judah; and this theme I often felt was most inferred by the circumstances.

I had actually/initially surmised this woman’s rebellion to be, not only a product of my dad’s Satanism (and persuasion), but also potentially as a mark of her status of lesser than a servant (of which may potentially be symbolized, to some extent/in some interpretations, by the pregnant victim of/at Fort Hood) to the Poetry classmate — which I had presumed may have been targeted by Satan according to the [aformentioned] Germans’ (i.e., e.g. SJDC teacher and MHC employee) demeanor and a general assessment of Germanic collusion in Satanic endorsement/reinforcement (against me), and according to an impending call to [public] prophetic duty.

Nevertheless, I had often surmised the woman’s faith to potentially be sufficient enough that she, as an independent (i.e. free from demonic possession and/or persuasion) entity and/or property, might eventually escape damnation. And it was toward the aim of effecting or assisting this outcome (either for individuals or communities) that I developed and employed a lot of the tenor, tactics, antics and inflection at the revelations mentioned.

Thus, the notion of a “Sarah”-esque entity existing in relation to me (and/or to any progeny) is often addressed in various ways and generally to the intent of minimizing an unfavorable impact on the propagation of racism and/or sexism. Therefore, any interpretable frustration I expressed may have been a reaction to feeling/surmising that both [political] parties were working, not only to destroy lives, but also to create and/or infer enmity among them.

* I do not recall the exact timing of this person’s death^ (c. April 2000), but I do recall walking by her in the hallway as I was either assisting a student to class (as an aide), or returning from doing so. She also noticed me, but we did not say anything. I actually probably looked away more readily than I might have — perhaps because I had already met the other woman, and I felt a little disloyal to my heart. I also had surmised that, since I was so enamored with her, that she would soon die; and that day when she walked by me, I felt as if though I were certain and that she somehow also understood and was saying goodbye. I’m not sure if I ever saw her again, but we got the news in class and I don’t suppose I made it to too many more of them. Indeed, all the proceeding demeanor of the animals (e.g. the dog and the cat), prior to their deaths, has been reminiscent of this initial observation and experience; and this person has become symbolic of — though not necessarily as a bearer of an exclusive trait or characteristic — an ‘Eve’-like representation of humanity, faith and friendship to me. Thus, the resulting scenario of witnessing the cat’s and child’s death, and the concomitant persecution of the Church by a ‘service man’, (and the death of an ardent supporter of donation thereunto); and also experiencing the seeming lack of a compassionate understanding of self-sacrifice and the perceptibly shameless promotion of self or America by [the] [Protestant] political figures, may have been further irritating or disturbing to me — thereby affecting the tenor of the above and other correspondence. 

^ It seems that the incident in the hallway+ may have been the last time I saw them, though I was perhaps expecting (though anticipating not) to see them in class again. When we were in class, I would often consider the portion of Anne Frank’s “Tales from the Secret Annex” that I had read much earlier — perhaps just by picking up the book and reading a passage when my reading comprehension wasn’t very well — about the meeting at a tree log. I recall the German teacher had mentioned something about “trysts” — perhaps when I first took his course ?some semesters previously — around the time of the incident of our shaking hands. Also, it seemed to be near this teacher’s class that we crossed in the [open] hall of the school, and I may have been driving a personal motorized chair back to the Mobility Center. So it was that it seemed she could have also appeared somewhat shocked, yet my analysis of her potentially being [ordained to be] like a “wife” figure as Anne Frank had been a “mother” figure likely contributed to my anticipation of her death as well. For, I had often noted that I had had these thoughts, and I would check with the demeanor of others to see if it was somehow indicative of some sort of spiritual orientation, and I had likely became very anxious over her security, the eventuality of any occurrences, as well as guilt-stricken for my inability to communicate my concern or intervene, and over the apparent necessity, potentially due to my recklessness,  for ‘sacrifice’. In addition, likely shortly after her death, a student may have committed suicide (perhaps in, or near, my presence) by jumping over an upper story railing. I had felt that, at that time, something strange was occurring — not only in general but at the time of the occurrence of the act — and that I had to be protected and/or chastised in this way; and so I accepted the responsibility to live and work the works God had prepared for me, at least in part because I felt I was encouraged to by others.

+ The incident that occurred in the hallway was one wherein I felt more convinced of her impending death the farther I kept going, and it seemed as though, when our backs were eventually at each others’, that she was somehow telling me that this was my last chance — that if I didn’t turn around and confront her that I would never see her again. I fought off the strange feeling, but I also accepted the reality and eventuality of it. My thoughts turned to memories of Plato’s or Socrates’ [relating the] description of human beings being connected at their backs previously — as it was that it seemed she communicated more to me when  we were opposed than from when I could still see her face. I put my trust in God to do what was right, and ‘said’ a silent prayer of no certain content. I remembered how David had hoped for the child to live, and I felt like I was in a similar strait. I felt heartbroke and powerless, but at that time I knew I could have intervened and it filled me with guilt and uncertainty. I suppose I felt bad that I might be asking God to do what I could have done, and I was unsure if I was supposed to [try to] intervene or not. I also had a difficult time, perhaps because of my recent brain trauma, facing the ‘facts’ and acting on them. This scenario likely affected the content of “JCT” a lot.

A biographical corollary here is that, when I first went to the UOP hygienist clinic in 2005, I not only had a full beard (which is rather orange/reddish), but I deliberately did not shake hands with anyone — and it seemed they would proffer them often to ensure I was choosing not to. Yet, when I returned in ?2006, my beard was cut short, and I shook hands with whoever offered. I supposed that the primarily female staff may have felt offended that I did not shake their hands, but I was trying to instill the restraint I had lacked much earlier in shaking the German teacher’s hand. In addition, I had surmised that this activity was essentially giving others permission to harm me and/or instigating Satan to initiate harm — perhaps because he didn’t want there to be an exchange or transmission of some sort, and/or because God did not want me to be doing the activity on the premises I was in the first place. So, during the first experience I received much better care, but had a bout of self-harm following the hurricanes; whereas the second experience truly seemed to be like an assault on my health and life via my teeth, yet I did not inflict much more self-harm after that except perhaps via heat stroke and overexertion. Thus, I [likely] became more resolved to discourage the act of shaking hands as a greeting, though it [tentatively] seems that using the left hand does not pose the same risk or necessitate the same condemnation. In general, perhaps to avoid cultural bias and/or dissension, I advocate omission as a mode of conduct to be incrementally employed.] 



Mrs. Palin,

It seems to me that you are enjoying the misconduct of America, because perhaps it makes you feel that you can’t be blamed for yours as long as they are getting away with theirs. And since you are so patriotic (if that’s what they’re calling it these days), you and/or America are rather the victims than the perpetrators.

But [that] it is the effect of oppression — rather than freedom, ‘genius’, or justice — that allows you to be asserting and denying the things you have, as you then more easily blend in with and appeal to others. And perhaps this is why I have approached you to potentially remedy your behavior — because in the adage of two wrongs not making a right, there is also the inference that two wrongs can be more than twice as bad.

And so it is that I would expect the populace, not only from its ‘democratic’ testimony of electing Obama, but also due to the misconduct during Katrina (and other events) under Bush’s administration, to attempt the righting of the wrongs accrued to African-Americans through the election of Obama — albeit with potentially disastrous consequences (which would not necessarily be completely attributable to Obama, even if he were enabling them) — but that I would not expect a politician, especially of allegiance to the initially instigative party (Republican) to then engage in further[ing] misconduct under the guise of combating it.

Indeed, however, it is not unreasonable to consider that you and/or your family — perhaps being under unanticipated and [seemingly] unwarranted pressure — would be more inclined to personal shortcomings. However, I hope that my correspondence has not only been able to highlight some of the potential ramifications of perhaps unintentional but potentially careless, ignorant, unprofessional, or otherwise morally deficient conduct; but that it will also serve as a reminder of the necessity of avoiding ‘fueling the fire’ at all times — especially when it is already apparently too hot.

As for your speech (which I only saw a portion of on FOX, yet read in its entirety), I found it personally offensive as per your excessive, hypocritical, and [gloatingly] disrespectful patriotism. And moreover, as for your history of expressive anti-Semitism, I did find — perhaps most notably in the video presentation — the effect of the victims as serving as “honorary” Palins/Republicans — which I nonetheless would have expected, not only from your personal shortcomings, but as a ramification/manifestation of the inherent corruption that is involved in praising America, and your excessive (and apparently apologetic) participation therein.

A. M. W.



Mrs. Sarah Palin,

I noticed your new show is called Sarah Palin’s Alaska and, although the intent is not one necessarily of possession, it does seem to take on that connotation especially after your behavior with your neighbor.
Moreover, I have often assessed your (collective with Todd’s) personality to be genocide sympathetic, although generally (and counter-productively) disguised as patriotism.
A few notable Kristallnacht-esque occurrences might be Todd’s T-shirt, {If you don’t love America, leave.” and his statement, “these guys are out to seek and destroy.” and your apparently seconding, “out to getchya.” And this effect is perhaps exacerbated as your promotion of self is one of being opposed to injustice and oppression — thus implicating hypocrisy.
Furthermore, the hope those have for your effecting political salvation, which you apparently use to promote protestantism, may more easily allow you to propagate the scapegoat-dependent mentality that is often necessary for persecution and oppression.
In my opinion, the realities of the injustices that are occurring do not necessarily exclude, but rather more likely include, you; though not necessarily in a prosecutable manner.
For this, and other reasons, I appeal to your conscience to take the initiative in abandoning these — perhaps seemingly innocent, yet potentially destructive –shortcomings, along with that passive-aggressiveness that inherenltly accompanies those who are complacent before [an]other’s suffering.

Angelo Weitz

P.S.: And the Tea Party idea. I would generally say it’s just a bad idea since it intones “whiteness’ and aristocracy as well as interpretally trivializng the [racial] oppresion of those people abandoned during Katrina, yet I also spoke of this term in a prophetic speech occuring around September or October 2004, and you’re probably aware of the illegitimate use of disapproved terms in the Bible and the scenario is apparently similar. So, honestly, between the [timing of the] T-shirt and the party idea I can’t feel but a little bit targeted for an insult to my and other’s character — which apparenlty the ultimate difference between you and others is your brazenness and/or shamelessness, or again just political-incorrectness and/or -ignorance.


And your allegiance with that FOX news which allows O’Reilly (not to mention Beck) to say things like, “…The solution has to work.” without anyone ever really calling him out on it is just like the icing on the cake.

And so it is that most of the anti-Islamism today appears to be a way also of communicating or relating anti-Semitism — as it (anti-Islamism) appears (and apparently feels) more justifiable.

All in all the tenor of the words of the people you associate with, as well as your own words, are already assessable as being out of line for any political or professional organization — and not being so in a minor or feasibly correctable manner.


Again, there, with the “Tea Party” idea — another reason it is contra-indicated is that, especially since your [brazen] misconduct and accusations against your neighbor, and the acceptance and promotion of the anti-Semitic view on your show and with your husband and political allies, is that it intones, reminds, and alludes to the treason at Joppa (2 Maccabees 12:3-4), and is as indicative of th(-e/-at) American lack of integrity, respect, consideration, humility, and appropriateness as any other American misconduct — and rather “raises the bar” for that type of behavior.

Also, I am still undecided on how best to clarify for the audience my lack of support for you and/or your political — and yet perhaps most importantly religious — view.





Dear Sarah,

I was thinking the other day, and I was reminded of something that I think I have often correlated with you. It is basically the Scriptures (such as Jeremiah 3) that relate to, perhaps most RELEVANTly, Jerusalem as having characteristics of a prostitute.

You may remember that in previous emails I have commented on your, IMO, destructive and yet intentional use of sexual innuendo. And this I attributed to perhaps a hypothetical sexual repression, or maybe even at times a potential history of sexual abuse.

Yet, I think my main observation has remained undisclosed, as it may have often been overlooked in an inadvertent attempt to seem more politically or religiously correct myself.

Again, this observation is basically one of you being similar to the Jerusalem of certain Scriptures, and the NOTION that your “whoredoms”, as it were, are more reflective of spiritual strivings or shortcomings, as well as a potentially negative perception of, or relation to, Judaism.

In essence, my main concern here is THAT your portrayal of yourSELF as being a “wilderness lover”, OR an otherwise immoral character, could be interpreted as [further] anti-Semitism.

Also, it may help you to ACHIEVE better relations with all faiths if you CONSIDER that your mistreatment by others may reflect a scenario where you are reperesentative of another or others, and yet not accepting such in a manner so as to justify your own shortcomings.




Lame-Stream Media


I still disagree strongly with the phrase, and the fact that is now an acronym is counterproductive IMO. Let me explain a little bit more why:

First, ‘lame’ is a classification of a group of people who were authorized to be executed (and subsequently banned from the ?synagogue?) by David and his followers (2 Sam. 5:6-8). This, in and of itself is basically confined to the interpretations of morality for the generation of, and circumstances surrounding, its occurrence. But for you to use a similar phrase while pursuing a leadership position, enables one to potentially justify a similar use of aggression or violence against others. And also because of your perhaps overstated and unrepresentable pledge of American allegiance to Israel, these statements may also reflect the nature of Judaism in a derogatory manner, perhaps as one not able to adapt to the current level of morality expected of civilizations (which is ultimately your own shortcoming in this regard and IMO).

Secondly, the position you have been taking to (perhaps shamelessy) assert that the construction of a mosque would be inappropriate considering that an attack was made by an apparently similarly religiously-affiliated group, could also create a reference of the nature of conquering that was applied by David previously. However, in this instant your use of “lame” would indicate an approval of perhaps unmitigated violence to achieve certain goals. And this, in turn, would contrast with your already unproductive resistance to the progress of reconstruction in America, undermining your integrity even further.

Finally, after watching your interview with Greta, I don’t think you are handling the phrase well in a public setting (and this may be because it really can’t be done in a civilized society IMO). Furthermore your inability to grasp the inappropriateness of this type of behavior, concomitant with your history of use of sexual innuendos to achieve a ‘politerotica’ effect, would create a hypocritical image of self that would not only be potentially politically and personally disastrous, but also be derogatory toward women in general.

– A. M. W.




Below is a copy of one of your posts at your Facebook page. I will discuss my perception of the impact of it in CAPS and will edit using [brackets].














– A. M. W.

P. S.: I think I meant to use “contrasts” instead of “illustrates”. Also, since maiming is a practice that is continued in Christ’s adaptations to Mosaic Law, it may prove helpful for you to utilize a mock-maiming practice such as writing with your non-dominant hand. I think if you do this often enough you will be less likely to be overly assertive as well as cultivate a more balanced and comprehensive approach to arguments.



Mrs. Sarah Palin,

For previous public remarks that I have issued online, (in response to certain circumstances surrounding you and your family), I am compelled to reassess those statements and the impact they may have for the expression of, and exrapolation of inferences from, my views; as well as how those statements may be considered for the justification of your political views and/or actions.

One such example of a statement is the one I posted at the IUSB Vision Weblog,

“The treatment of the Palins has really made me re-evaluate the meaning of success. I have often considered the “cheaters don’t win and winners don’t cheat” philosophy but the abuse of the Palin family has totally re-emphasized the importance of integrity to the concept of victory for me. May God bless the Palin family.”

Here, I am perhaps most concerned that my request that God bless the Palin family, would be misconstrued as a support of your and/or Todd’s political, ideological, or theological views — or those of, or for, any member of the Palin family. My intended emphasis was for the security, both physical and spiritual, of primarily your children, (with the implied extension to all children — whether of political figures or not). Pehaps I need to clarify that with the site, but I am not sure if the editor(s) will comply; and also that/those editor(s) and I have often had disputes that may make communicating further there counter-productive.

Nevertheless, I do find your religious philosophy, especially as to how it relates to your political views, to be immiscible with mine. Moreover, I do not support many of the justifications for America’s action, irrespective of political party divide, that you inevitably possess; neither are our condemnations of America’s misconduct comparable, interchangeable, or as it were, miscible.

However, I would like to assure you that, according to the pursuit of international and national peace, I continue to aspire to bring the perpetrators to justice. Part of this process has included contacting the International Criminal Court about some of America’s actions. Also, in communicating with that Court I am referencing the email correspondence, sent to you from me, at this address.


Angelo M. Weitz

Note: All previous disclaimers included in [previous] correspondence valid also for current document.



Mrs. Palin,

Perhaps the only issue about your persona I have not yet discussed is your style of patriotism. Unfortunately, I find it — as I’ve said of some other aspects of your presentations — to be rather shameless.

I grew up aware of the injustices that can take place in a nation — injustices that no war can right, for they are committed within the
self-same nation that would be fighting another — and I witnessed what a lack of attention to justice can bring. And, as I grew older, I had hoped that I would be able to make a difference.

I understand that you have a son who is in the military, but I also understand that you probably have access to certain information about America that perhaps not all do.

And it is according to this information, (for, to me, it is not just information), that I had initially been encouraged that things might be different — that is to say, better.

But, unfortunately, I have had to witness, (traumatically at times), the wanton destruction of life that, from my understanding and in my opinion, had been set aside for deliverance by the God in Who[m] America[ns] ha(-s[/-ve]) often presumed to prevail.

And also, I have had to witness the obstructions of justice, whose undesirable, and yet inevitable, consequences I had become acquainted with in my youth, be multiplied beyond anything I might have imagined possible then.

So, in despising injustice, which has often appeared to come naturally to me, I also must remember to honor justice.

And, for me this has not been achieved with an oft self-serving notion of patriotism, nor, as I presume it has for others, thru a denial of truth, (even while carried out under the auspices of it); but through the recognition that, in spite of all [external] resistance, contrivance, harassment, malediction, hatred, corruption, perjury, et al., that I can still make that difference.

Sometimes, the most important difference I feel that I make is in forgiving. Often this means still accepting those who, within the confines of reason alone, I would not be wise to.

Yet, in accepting persecution, (whether for myself or others), I also am accepting the truth that it is temporary; and this persecution we have witness of individuals overcoming — not only the ramifications thereof, but also the temptations thereunto.

And so it is that I often am a little disappointed with your assumption of patriotism and allegiance to “truth” that seems, at least to me, to be accepted and marketed as a packaged good that is not yet available in stores, and while once freely given, does not come with the purchase.


Angelo M. Weitz

Consider John 18:36-37,
“[…] My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,[…] but now is my kingdom not from hence. […] To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

and 1 John 2:3-6,
“And hereby we do know that we know [H]im, if we keep [H]is commandments. He that saith, I know [H]im, and keepeth not [H]is commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth [H]is word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in [H]im. He that saith he abideth in [H]im ought himself also so to walk, even as [H]e walked.”



Mrs. Palin,

I recently noticed that some individuals also respond to your posts, yet in a more open format (e.g.

It has not been my intention to draw unnecessary attention to, or from, you; but to continue my rehabilitation and practice communication.

Also, I am concurrently addressing other people as well, such as Patricia O’Brien at the U.N. and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. I am also compiling some information to present to the ICC. I have often communicated with the US DOJ and other organizations as well.

However, my request is still toward the Pontiff of Rome, as I’ve been striving to maintain a more comprehensive dialogue with the Catholic Church.

As I am unaware of copyright laws I am requesting that you send any emails you have received from this address that you have not already, including this one.

I plan to curtail my conversations and advice, at least temporarily.

I hope my insight might prove helpful for improving your public speaking and political presentation. Also, I hope you will continue to inspire others and grow in your faith.


Angelo Weitz



Mrs. Palin,

Here’s another analysis of one of your comments:




A. M. W.

P.S.: DON’T FORGET DANIEL 5[:18-23], AND PSALM 120[:7].



Correction/ Continuation:

It may have been Psalm 35 that I initially felt was more relevant (than Psalm 120). They are both intended to indicate the inappropriateness, or ineffectiveness, of referring to peace. The actual quote I had in mind, (which may be a contrivance of impaired memory), was something along the lines of, “They say, “Peace, peace,” but when I speak they are for war.” wherein you would be like the one saying, “Peace…” Also, in general, I presume the Psalms are well known, not only among the Jewish community, but also among the Christian as well. And to mention peace at all is as an attempt to ‘claim’ them on your part — even as you intone an attack on the sincerity of his [religious] character. In my opinion, the level of victimization you have received does not warrant this type of behavior. Also, Joe is not responsible for [all of] it, and you don’t need to make it seem like he is.



Earlier today I wrote of some concern I had about your awareness of your (a woman’s) need for exercising caution in avoiding depicting yourself as someone who belongs subject to another while pursuing leadership positions. I just recently read your most recent comment on Facebook and I will discuss some aspects of it that I feel elucidate the concept I am describing as well as illustrate your continued need for improvement.

I hope you won’t mind that I’ve posted your comment below to assist in your edification. Also, I will probably do better to address the issues within the comment next to where they occur so I will write in all caps for clarity.








A. M. W.




Mrs. Palin,

Perhaps due to gender or TBI the impact of another’s tenor tends to leave an indelible impression on me. I have noticed, and commented on, what appeared to be a lack of awareness on your part as to: the shortcomings of your presented tenor, the necessity for an increased vigilance in maintaining appropriate tenor due to your gender, and/or your need for improvement in those areas to achieve an ‘honest effort’ image following political defeat.

I have recently watched a video of you on FOX News covering the oil spill. It still appears to me that you are not evaluating your tenor and tone enough. At times you appear to be too reactive. This is, in part, why I feel your presence on Facebook and certain news shows, although potentially building popularity, will eventually work against you — especially as your responses, and the sitatuions in general, tend to cultivate and/or necessitate the propagation of a more impatient, powerless,and/or embiittered persona.

In essesnce, the more popular you become for being someone who can’t adapt or cope, the less likely you will be able to persuade voters confidently.

I personally don’t advocate or promote democracy but I am intending these statements as a follow up to some of my others posted online (@IUSB Vision Weblog), and as a potential impediment to inevitably discussing politics unnecessarily at other times.


A. M. W.



Mrs. Palin,

Your new situation and remarks remind me of Jeremiah 27. Maybe you should review the chapter and see if it helps bring some new insight into your solution.


A. M. W.



The miscarriage(s) of justice and the lack of familial support and/or community recognition have proved to be disturbing for me. In part because of a correlation between the support of previous attacks against me and the support of more attacks against me and/or others, I have found it difficult to give too much more attention to politics as my health continues to decline. I generally sort of just ‘write off’ this generation as too incongruent with the progression of humanity — surmising that it may not fare too well on Judgment Day. Indeed, the antics of certain political figures is often too reminiscent of the antics of other people who have engaged in misconduct toward me, which is upsetting, disconcerting and irritating (as it often seems intended to be).


Here are some documents pertaining to my dentist and hygienist visits at UOP:

(Message sent to UOP School of Dentistry, S.F. for review)

To whom it may concern:

I have been a patient at the UOP School of Dentistry at the Stockton Campus both recently, and previously; and I also have obtained services from the Dental Hygienist Training Program portion of the School. I was a patient at the hygienist and dentist programs in 2005, and a patient at the hygienist program in 2007. After 2007 — during which I received a root planing and scaling procedure which left noticeable marks on and in between my teeth; and which was in comparison, (and in my opinion), done with considerably less acquired skill than the former — I decided not to follow up with any more appointments at the hygienist clinic.

Recently I had some tooth pain over the Winter Holidays and went to see an oral surgeon. However, after a brief exam, the oral surgeon said that I was doing fine and that all I’d need is a filling. Therefore I scheduled an appointment with the UOP Dentistry Clinic in Stockton for January. I attended the first appointment and their diagnosis was that I needed to have at least one extraction, multiple root canals, and various other fillings and cleanings. I inquired about the cost and availability of extractions and I was told that it would always be an option and that it would always be available.

The next appointment I went to, a filling was somehow scheduled (I had indicated that I did not want amalgam fillings and was pursuing extractions at the previous appointment) and I did not allow it to be done (I have had bad experiences proceeding dental work and have not been able to rule out allergy to amalgam or composite fillings). I asked about the procedure and preparation for extractions and was told they could be done the same day. I asked to have 2 or 3 done and it was agreed upon. Apparently someone called during this time and thru correspondence with them, (which upon awareness of I stipulated my intention that cross-communication cease), my treatment plan was altered and the extractions denied at that time. I rescheduled the extractions for another day (Wednesday 2-03-10), yet when I arrived there was a situation wherein Dr. [X] and Dr. [Y], (perhaps in accordance with another), had orchestrated for the disallowance of the extractions; and I was provided with: a) different and misleading information about the status of my dental health, and b) an option of either electing to have composite fillings or no treatment at all.

I was told that if I desired to have extractions I would have to wait until the teeth were more decayed and possibly infected. I asked for clarification and time to think about my options. I asked about the change in status of decay of certain teeth which seemed not to be reflective of actualities. In the few minutes I was taking to recollect myself and attempt to choose an option, (and to understand the situation), Dr. [Y] approached the student dentist and directed him to, “just get [me] out of [t]here.”* The student dentist responded that I was thinking it over and Dr. [Y] withdrew to another area, returning later to inspect and direct the student’s work.

I have since had a reevaluation of my dental health at another facility. The dentist took digital x-rays** and detailed the decay. The existence of decay on the teeth that were said to somehow not have decay was noted, as well as residual/ unattended decay on the teeth treated with the composite fillings (which were previously scheduled for extractions). Perhaps the main difference between the initial assessment received at UOP (prior to adjustment to apparently promote a desired treatment plan), and the one received independently; was that the independent evaluation allowed for the crowning of many teeth, whereas the UOP evaluation indicated that crowning was not an option because the decay was too far below the gum line.

I do not recall requesting any other procedures other than extractions from UOP. My main concerns were for my general health and the avoidance of chemicals that I may be overly-sensitive or allergic to. I had stated many times that if UOP would not perform the extractions to let me know and I would go somewhere else to have them performed. I was only informed about their unwillingness to do the extractions on my last visit on 2-03-10.

They had scheduled some amalgam fillings and composite fillings and I did not want them, but I also did not want infections and my schedule was being affected by the delay in services. I hesitantly and reluctantly chose to undergo the composite fillings, not fully understanding that the necessary grinding might impact the amalgam already existing in the tooth structures, nor desiring to have the materials in composite fillings used on me (for religious reasons above and beyond any health concerns).

I have since called to complain about the treatment I received and have been tentatively offered a refund and an apology (though not necessarily stating what for). There may have been some misunderstanding about who would be paying for the treatments and it may have been presumed that another was paying for them. I can not afford to have root canals or crowning procedures done, either at UOP or elsewhere, even if I desired to have them done. The reason I have been given for the treatment I received is that, as dentists, they had to choose to save the teeth if they could. Moreover, I am no longer allowed to obtain services from UOP, (if it were my desire to do so).

I did have a bad response to the treatment I received. Whether this was attributed entirely, in part, or less, to the use of chemicals in composite fillings, or the disturbance of amalgam material, or the otherwise mistreatment I received during my experiences at UOP; may remain an unresolved matter.

I did state that I was chemically sensitive, that I did avoid many substances, that I did have Traumatic Brain Injury, that I have had bad experiences proceeding dental work, and that, due to uncontrollable circumstances and obligations, I was perhaps under more stress than usual and also needed to maintain the best general (and mental) health possible. Also, my schedule is not so flexible so as to allow for the unproductive, or counterproductive, allotment of time.

In conclusion, I feel that my religious views were discriminated against, that my privacy was violated, that my treatment plan was not adequately discussed with me, that I was made to feel unwelcome at the clinic, that my health concerns were not taken seriously, and that, in being lied to and provided with undesired options, that I was being publicly humiliated as well as physically endangered.

Perhaps in spite of all of this, the learning environment of the students and the safety of others has remained my primary concern. I do not like having to consider that other patients would be treated in a similar fashion; or that my being treated in the manner that I was, or am, is justifiable.

It is still my intention to obtain extractions.


Angelo M. Weitz

*(Paraphrase according to recollection)

**This dental office will send x-ray files to other parties free of cost, yet I would not like to have to request this service for this matter.

(New statement not [as-of-yet] sent to UOP School of Dentistry, S.F.)

During my final visits to the Stockton UOP dentistry clinic — (specifically during my first visit for evaluation) — I received a [religious] revelation pertaining to the safety of American civilians; and, as in times past, (link for reference)*, I relayed the information to others and directed them to promptly contact the police or other federal or governmental organization with the information. Irrespective of religious obligation, I generally consider relaying this type of information as somewhat similar to a civic duty.

According to my recollection, I was not questioned about the matter by students or staff, at any time; and I also did not mention it to them, (except when calling concerning complications of confusion following treatment, and to request that the information be revalidated and confirmed and abridged to as-of-then current insight).

In regards to my treatment plan, I continually reaffirmed my intention to have extractions performed and said that if it would be a problem to perform them there that I would seek care elsewhere. The extractions were scheduled, and yet the day of the appointment they were denied. I was also given false and misleading information about the health of my teeth and an option either to have fillings or no treatment at all.

Although the eventual composite filling may have protected a tooth, I felt disturbed by the treatment I received, the misinformation I was presented with, and perhaps by exposure to materials in the filling process. I understand that all of the change in my emotional state may not have predicated upon my treatment at the clinic, as it is that the revelation process and the anxiety involved in waiting for the outcome of the event(s) may have an effect.

It was during the eventualities that ensued after the confrontation of the realities of another revelation (relayed in 2004) that I began to have some troubles after dental procedures. At that time, about the time of the hurricanes of New Orleans, I had an amalgam and composite filling done. I had talked to one of the students about the revelation that had occurred in 2004 and how, thru that process, I had known and relayed information about the 2004 tsunami and also about the apparently (at that time) pending hurricanes. I talked of the necessity for evacuation and the estimated death toll.

After the tragedy and/or failed mitigation, and yet also after the aforementioned amalgam and composite fillings; I had a brief episode of self abuse that may best be described as an autistic-like self-inflicted attack on my brain that occurred repetitively over the course of approximately 3 days and left me with considerable brain damage accompanied by speech and cognition impairment. I have had some previous brain injuries but not like (though not necessarily less severe than) the sustained routine battering I was inflicting at those times.

It might be important to note that I generally receive no feedback for, interaction concerning, or recognition of, the events I describe(d); either at that the time I relay the information, or at the time that it is shown to have been relevant [to the safety of others].

It seems plausible that this might stem from some policy regarding me which may have been developed following the terrorist attacks of 9-11. It was prior to these attacks that I first began to sense that I might have information revealed to me and I began to “shut-down” physically and withdraw socially. I became so silent and inactive that I was sent for psychiatric care.

During my care I was routinely offered oral medications which I silently denied and therefore was injected with medications. The injections lasted approximately a month and the sites of their injection were my arms and buttocks. Although the injections were disorienting, it became evident to me that, thru them, I was becoming what may be referred to [religiously] as a “portent” for events that would soon occur; and which seemed to be being further revealed to me thru momentary glimpses, as it were, into that event.

Though I remained silent I began to try to communicate the information non-verbally — (I had previous experiences of having forecast dreams and religious experiences often treated as psychiatric disorders) — so I basically would stand up as long as possible and make the employees confront me, while standing, to give me the shots and then I would try to illustrate the collapse of buildings after I was injected by falling or sitting down abruptly (the medication basically makes this the normal reaction but I tried to dramatize it for communication).

I knew this was not the most effective communication process and longed to tell people what exactly my concerns were. However, one day, while still being treated and injected, I was undergoing a routine blood draw when one of the employees placed their hands on me (so as to hold me to the chair), and another more distant (approximately 10-20 feet away) employee called me the “Angel of Death” while a third employee simultaneously drew my blood into vials for study. The employee holding my arms down and the employee calling me the name were friends with each other and so I perceived that it might have been a plan between the two to, at best, rouse me out of my silence. However, the employee collecting my blood samples, whom I presumed may have been more professional due to his career and age, merely sneered/smirked at me.

During this scenario I felt/received a/the immediate revelation to keep the information undisclosed until after the occurrence, (i.e. 9-11), and so the incident was a bit discouraging as well as traumatic; and yet it illustrates a fundamental divide and conflict between the aforementioned concepts of civic duty and religious obligation.

After 9-11, I was never questioned about the coincidences between the treatment I received and the terrorist attacks. The estrangement and religious responsibilities eventually led me to undergo an apparent suicide attempt in 2004. This event was intended to be similar to Abraham’s and Isaac’s offering of sacrifice to affirm allegiance to the God requesting it. I did not die however, and it was in the hospital that I was recovering in that I had the revelation concerning the 2004 tsunami, hurricane of N.O, and many other events that include details of peoples personal lives, and as such will not be discussed here.

The experiences, in and of themselves, are traumatic and often deal with acts of violence. Knowing of them beforehand and understanding the potential for their mitigation and prevention is stressful, not only for the preparation of a response, but also as a factor proceeding the eventual occurrence. This may be because of a lack of feedback, acknowledgment, and recognition, and/or a deficit in communal, social, and familial support.

Because of the effects of these types of circumstances, and their recent accumulation, and also because of the continued aversion to acknowledgment and acceptance (in spite of a more public attempt at communication on my part); and perhaps due to the anticipation of the intent of perceived [interpretable] threats to my security (and their recent increase), and the otherwise understandable assumptions pertaining to the eventualities of an individual in these circumstances, have my abilities to understand and request care been affected.

The consideration of this situation, and the incorporation of this information into understanding and guiding my choices, may be helpful in the process of establishing a treatment plan.

[. . .]

Thank You,

A. M. Weitz

* Link for reference. (Note: I was banned form site amid a controversy surrounding libel, slander, and threats I was receiving. Also, I had a disclaimer available for statements posted there which was subsequently removed. It read as follows: “Disclaimer*: Scripture verses/excerpts, and/or [my] comments, statements, arguments, claims, references, or inferences, etc., are intended for personal reflection, and/or [non-violent] spiritual/religious inspiration; and are not intended as a justification, or stimulus, for murder, or any other sin(s), and/or crime(s). This disclaimer is intended to be valid for all of my posts at this site; for any content, inference, claim, or statement of mine that is quoted or referenced in another’s reply; for any of my posts made on any [other] site [for which I have provided a link to/for on this site]; also, for any posts, or replies, made at this message wall by myself [and/or others — (if applicable)]; and, as in regard(s) to [my] intention(s), for any content made available via a link that I have provided on this [, or any other,] site. Moreover, this disclaimer is not intended as a substitute, or replacement, for any other disclaimer found at this, or any other, site; (n)or for any disclaimer pertaining to, or in relation to, any content made available via a link that I have provided on this, or any other, site; irrespective of the origin(s) of that [other] disclaimer. Furthermore, I do not [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, this site; nor do I [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, any [other] site, or content, that I, or any(one/thing) else, have referenced, and/or provided a link to/for, on this site; neither do I [necessarily] endorse the views of, and/or associated with, any [other] content, member, user, editor, replier, et al., at this, or any other, site [for which I have provided a link to/for on this site]. *Subject to periodic change(s), development(s), and/or update(s).” Also, I intend for this disclaimer to be valid for the content and references contained in these documents when, and/or if, applicable.)


One incident I recall was asking the attending UOP instructor, immediately upon the completion of the root planing procedure, whether there could be any damage to enamel from the procedure. I was not aware of the medical literature pertaining to this question at the time, and I had asked the question basically to have an experience of being lied to, i.e. to gauge what would be the inflection, facial expression, etc. of the person telling it — primarily because I had already surmised how much trauma my teeth and enamel had endured and I was wondering if somehow the instructor, who was one of the few left from my previous visit, may have harbored some sort of resentment toward me which was manifesting as sadism.

Nonetheless, the main concern that is present now, is whether or not it should be permissible for those seeking fellowship with me to attend this university (UOP), or if it should be willfully avoided. At this point, it seems precautionary (and/or obligatory) to strive to avoid the university and to seek out other institutions of education (ref. also “Statements 5 (Update)“).

P. S. :

I recently (as of February 16, 2012) sent this email to the American Board of General Dentistry:

I was a patient at the UOP dental and hygienist training programs in Stockton, CA from 2005-2010. My initial visits in 2005 concerned treating rather sever[e] gingivitis (which was controlled with hygienist work) and receiving an amalgam and composite filling.

As I had previously had access to and related information about impending natural disasters, and since one of those disasters (Hurricane Katrina) was approaching, I informed at least one of the students about the scenario. After the hurricane occurred and there was no feedback, and after the amalgam placement, I had a bout of self-abuse that lasted about three days and left me cognitively impaired.

I returned in late 2006 or early 2007 for some more hygienist work at the request of my mother — though my gum health was doing rather well. This time not so much time was spent on scaling (whether sonic or manual) and the focus was on root planing. The planing occurred in perhaps 4 sessions (1 per quadrant), and noticeably involved more aggressive (and inept) scraping than the previous encounter.

I had presumed at the time that I would later have severe dental problems, and I felt foolish for returning each time as I could notice that my teeth were being whittled away and becoming very rough at and/or near the gum line.

I had noticed that the supervising staff were fewer than before, and I supposed that this may have been due to budget cuts. At the end of the root planing procedure I had asked the supervisor if the instruments caused harm to teeth or enamel and was told that they do not.

In late 2009 and early 2010 I began to notice the severity of the decay in my upper (and lower) left molars. I had initially been taken to an oral surgeon who[*] advised me that I just needed a filling. When I went to UOP I was told that I would need multiple root canals and crowns, and that I would need some [amalgam] fillings as well.

As I had had such a bad experience with the amalgam placement previously I had specifically requested that no new amalgam was placed and had requested and scheduled extractions. On the day the extractions were to be performed there were attempts to place amalgam which I thwarted, and I was eventually persuaded (by an ultimatum) to have composite fillings placed.

Another incident of relaying pertinent security information occurred, at perhaps the initial visit to UOP for the fillings in 2010, which involved the airplane attack on an FBI building and had not yet occurred prior to my becoming banned from receiving treatment at UOP.

As the fillings fell out and/or were not placed well I requested and received a refund. I had also requested the contact information of the main UOP Dental School in San Francisco and had written emails there expecting to receive some feedback but not actually receiving it.

As I was unable to have either the UOP or [initially] my new dentists agree that such damage could have occurred from aggressive and/or inept scaling, and as I had had it related to me by professionals that it could not have occurred, I found myself to be a bit confused as to what measures to take. Also, the idea of accruing more stress and various factors of [something akin to] ‘religious compulsion’ and/or civic duty did not lend to pursuing a legal case at the time.

I recently called an attorney and they related that the statute of limitations is expired and that I have no action of recourse available.

It should be noted that I had often requested to have legal assistance and/or counseling at times I was relaying preemptive information and did not receive it, nor any feedback or recognition therefor — but was often [seemingly] subjected to public ridicule in lieu of it.

Moreover, I was unable to conclude through medical/dental research that such damage could have, in fact, occurred until quite some time after the incident; and it is only recently that I have had some medical professionals at least tentatively agree that such damage may have occurred.


Angelo Michael Weitz

P. S. : For more information visit my blog at[:]

[* Perhaps the initial incidence of denial occurred at this office, as the oral surgeon had rebuked the/his assistant for indicating to/agreeing with me, while taking x-rays, that the damage could have occurred from inept scaling/planing. I had also noted his seeming discriminatory behavior toward said assistant, who was apparently Islamic, especially relative to his treatment of another assistant.]


Here is a series of emails sent to Andrea Tantaros* from Sept. 5th – Sep. 7th 2011: 



I have enjoyed viewing “The Five” recently, and I generally find your commentary to be insightful.

I also liked learning about your dad from your/his eulogy at your site.

The main concern I have is that the tenor of a lot of FOX News’ discussions include a tendency to lend to unproductiveness — not just from a political vantage, but from a general community-based one as well.

Perhaps it is a side effect of trying to rebel against, compete with, and/or parody certain forms of political correctness, but the environment (at FOX) seems to be one wherein people are [encouraged to be] too comfortable [with] their assumed comradery and intrinsically unsympathetic with — or perhaps rather inefficiently engaging — any opposition.

Yet, the net effect of the programs there often appears to be derogatory, and to embody the ‘sore-loser’ image and/or self-righteous antagonism that may eventually facilitate the [counter-]manipulation of the undecided.

Again, however, it seems that the behaviors, even if abetting political success, would inevitably create social distress.

[Note: The progression of the content below is, in part, derived from memory as I somehow deleted a large portion of the text already written (it was near completion). What follows is actually a bit different from the former version yet is basically similar.]

Perhaps the gravest consequences could arise from existing cultural contrasts amid women, often exemplified in Scripture (e.g. 2 Esdras 16:49-50).

Thus, the pornography-oriented oppression and humiliation of women, given a ‘stronghold’ by any inappropriateness of verbal conduct, and/by being able to imbue religious doctrine (e.g. Matthew 15[:1-18], 21[:31]), could benefit from the lapse of discretion, and garner an appeal that becomes more difficult to counter as derogatory/detrimental social constructs are enacted.

Therefore, the obstacles that confront women could be made more tenable by making them less gender-biased and more gender-specific — creating a polarization between the cultural contrasts that enables oppression to continue in a more subliminal and unseen fashion.

In this way, it would seem plausible to have one’s success ‘hijacked’, as it were, for a few rash comments (compare to leaving the keys in your car and not locking its doors).


Angelo M. Weitz



I was reading your blog for March 10 about Huckabee’s comments about Portman (it seems I had read it before), and I realized that his comment really highlights what is wrong with a lot of the Republican tenor (IMO).

The most important/illustrative part to reference is, “[. . .] if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care.”

It is the generalized derogatory and condescending tenor aimed at women (and children) that makes this comment a political failure.

Moreover, its semblance to Judas I.’s [insincere] sentiments for the poor makes it a religious blunder — if not altogether a ‘warning sign’ — [to potential voters] as well.

And portraying the government as the bread-giver (which is G-d in many religions) indicates rather a sacrilegious bitterness at having to share (e.g. his portion of their ‘manna’).

I think the tenor of his comment will imply a different content, such as “when America has been killing its own people, it’s really been an act of mercy.” as people begin to realize what has been happening to them — which, by the way, I feel is underrated in the media presentation, making them appear more evil and disconnected than necessary.

I suppose the way you focus on a main point in his argument is fair political sponsorship, but I wouldn’t expect you to not understand that a comment made with such blatant imagery is not going to be a productive one overall.

Therefore, I guess my main question would be (not that I anticipate/expect a response): why is that you don’t portray yourself more sincerely (if my assessment is correct)? Is it because you don’t want to expose your party’s [candidate’s] weaknesses/flaws to support an image of yourself you might be able to achieve another way?



I hadn’t noticed your comments about feminists before.

I don’t always watch the show.

It had seemed to me that you were sort of ‘stumbling over your conscience’ in some of your remarks, and that the group ‘frenzy’ was fueling self-destructive (e.g. as per reputation) tendencies all around.

And this is another focus that I think FOX News’ community could benefit from, i.e. how to maintain integrity in a group setting.

The nature of some of the remarks has been too reminiscent of the schoolyard scenarios where people gang around a couple fighting and engender inhumanity.

Moreover, concerning the remarks that were issued on the particular episode, I think it becomes very self-defeating for the ‘religious right’ to attack someone on the premise of sexual activity — and then to introduce ‘eunuchs’ (of which religious figures [are] classified as) is altogether to[o] slanderous and counterproductive to justify.

I felt this show was dangerous because it is where a group can get together and basically get involved in the immoral activity already mentioned.

This is primarily why I addressed you in the first place.

I hope you all will continue to be able to engage each other and the audience productively and respectively.

* I was unaware of Andrea’s ardent support of forced/required vaccinations (or of enhanced interrogation/waterboarding) when I wrote. In general, I do not select the people I contact on a basis of compatibility with/support of their views**.  

** In relation to the views outlined, my position on them has basically been one wherein the behaviors are accepted as an indicator of the effectiveness of Bin Laden’s plot, and/or of the aggression of the insubordinate and inadequately justified oppressor, and/or of the futility and degradation inherent in abandoning honesty and sincerity. Nonetheless, of the two, I would generally be more tolerant of the waterboarding (if performed on adults), perhaps primarily because I have often had to surrender the care of an uninformed civilian populace to those who would have them drown. However, the prevalence of Andrea’s support of these tactics, amid the other incidents discussed in the emails, tends to contribute to an analysis of her character as one that has been perverted by circumstance and weakened by the ensuing internal conflict.   


Here is a set of emails sent to Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, around Sept. 27 2010:

From my perspective, the abuse people have endured, and continue to endure, from the suppression of truth and the manifesta[t]ion of deception may be indicative of hypocrisy. It is perhaps unfortunate that this abuse and hypocrisy appears to be stemming from democracies and promoters of religion. It appears to me that democracy itself is part of the problem, because religious law is not manifested through the will of people per se, but through revelation. The intention of subverting religious law with an alterable system may best be considered as a means of eliminating the power to prosecute, if not primarily [as] an attempt to attain to that power as well. As recent events may impact the functioning of inter-denominational relations, and perhaps principally affect a superficial change intending to create the illusion of progress, so one must also prepare for the ramifications, not only of the events themselves, but of those vain and misleading suppositions that must inevitably follow their concealment. The main interpretation one may conclude from witnessing the propagation of lies, especially when those lies are intended to be discoverable, is that lying is intended to be introduced as acceptable (at least by a minority); and this, when performed by the majority of democracy supporting organizations, and amid the slaughter of innocents, may illustrate more clearly the satanic origins of democracy — complete with its desire to propagate lying, under threat of death, and ultimately to subjugate and relegate the soul to corruption. When faced with this pattern of systematic abuse and murder, and the corruptions inherent in their justification and denials, one is left to consider the concept of defeat as being linked to willful perversion of justice, rather than [with] an inability to protect self or others from death. Indeed a noble death may be the only hope left under such regimes. May truth prevail in heaven and earth, protecting the innocent.


As you may not be aware of, I have contacted the ICC and United Nations in regards to the treatment I have received according to my religious beliefs. However, I can not always endorse your use of lethal punishments either; but, in as much as they pertain to the laws governing your nation or society, and are not introduced clandestinely, then it is generally my opinion that you and/or Iran are doing a better job at administering justice than America. Moreover, America’s manipulation of religiously revealed data, and the resulting lethal ramifications and their similarity to the effect of genocide, has created a new era of alliance wherein religious and political goals seem to mesh. I have often [sent correspondence to] Benjamin Netanyahu about the impact America’s condescension toward Israeli policy and practice might have amid America’s own misconduct in religious affairs and towards its own citizens (though it may have found a way to ‘legitimize’ this behavior), and of the impact of the similitude of America’s misconduct to the crimes often associated with Judaism (i.e. that America would essentially be creating a means of reinforcing, or reinvigorating, Nazi or pseudo-Christian/-Islamic persecution against Israel or Jews when, according to my estimation, those trespasses are no longer prosecutable — if ever they were to begin with. I[n my opinion], your relationship with Israel — in contrast to America’s unproductive slanderous and self serving alliance with Israel — has often led me to conclude, at least in part in accordance with Scripture (e.g. Proverbs 27:6), that you and/or Iran are also outpacing America in regards to ethical interaction with Israel as well. Perhaps it is important to note that, according to my religious beliefs, one may be under an obligation to outpace another by a great degree in order to attain to the merit of respect that they may desire (Matthew 5:20). In addition, condemnation may result more readily from denial than from trespass (Matthew 9:13).


Here is an email I sent to “” around May 2010:

“Homicide & Genocide”

To whom it may concern:

As you may already be aware, I often view the circumstances surrounding the use of the extinction principle (silent-treatment), in response to certain religious revelations I have related pertaining to the safety of others, to be a subliminal, if not blatant, promotion of the applications of homicide and genocide.

It recently came to my attention that the nation wherein the revelations occurred has certain military aspirations such as the application of a “Shock & Awe” principle. Because of the two principles (S&A and Extinction) there exists a greater cause for concern pertaining to human rights violations perhaps than in their absence.

Also, I feel my own rights have been violated though I do not know what they are and am having difficulty having them explained to me.

The loss of life that could feasibly have been protected under certain religious parameters is distressing. The lack of acknowledgment and cooperation from legal, medical, religious, and ethical entities is disconcerting.

One can wait and remain hopeful for change but it is not the same as seeking to enact it. It is, in part, due to this principle that I am issuing these statements.

Thank You,

A. M. Weitz

P. S.: Also, I have been having some difficulty relaying the following message to the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O’Brien. If it is possible to enact it’s delivery to her I am requesting that it be sent.

Ms. O’Brien,

I am having difficulty attaining recognition for events in my life, thereby causing an increase in stress and related illnesses, from medical, political, and/or legal parties or entities. I have made many attempts to have my rights explained to me or to seek an opportunity to communicate with others and had no response to my requests — even if issued while under medical care and supervision. I would like to understand the situation more and also what are my options in regards to the current laws. I have written about some of my experiences here under the name, “Angelo Michael”.


A. M. Weitz


It seems a bit too coincidental that the recent rise in promotion of non-civil means of achieving aims (e.g. violent mass protests, etc.) amid a concomitant denigration of other (e.g. non-violent) methods should occur in the wake of the willful and collusive [mis-]conduct surrounding events described above.

I thus find it imperative to explain further the intent of my statement, “One can wait and remain hopeful for change but it is not the same as seeking to enact it.”, above.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider is that I had not been able to (nor have I been able to) garner any sort of direct feedback or response from legal and political entities upon request.

Thus, the statement may have been written in a manner so as to imply an urgency for action — perhaps so as to potentially merit some sort of response.

Nevertheless, I recall deliberately adding the next portion, “It is, in part, due to this principle that I am issuing these statements.”, to clarify that my activity is prescribed to be more subtle — as the obligation I am under [religiously] is not to effect change but rather to advise, counsel, and warn of the consequences of sin and rebellion (ref. e.g. Ezekiel 3:18-21 and John 15:22). 


I have recently (October 2011) been posting some comments at a blog site,, and have noticed some of the comments are edited and/or omitted. I had initially decided to post some comments after beginning to read Nikki Stern’s book, _Because I Say So: The Dangerous Appeal of Moral Authority_.

Below are some of the comments in their entirety, with an indication (+++) of where editing took place:

“My experience with processing grief is that it often happens in stages, and that — especially when there is a sense of having lost the usual sense of control, and perhaps more importantly, continuity — the process involves confronting and overcoming anxiety and resentment as well.

Sometimes I wonder what impact brain injury and PTSD have contributed to that process for me — whether they have made it easier or more difficult in some respects, and/or whether the [accompanying] re-learning process provides new insights and developments that facilitate coping.

+++ (Portion below omitted [without indication]) +++

One thing that has provided a sense of estrangement for me is the notion that grief is a community issue, and the implication that there would be support and respect not only for those who suffer but for the varying viewpoints that have arisen surrounding and out of the tragedy.

The experiences I have often encountered, both before and after 9-11, are ones that could form a basis for a familiar stereotypical analysis — that a victim is best not to be victimized in the first place, because it will be all the more difficult for them to regain their prior standing; that disrespect, as it were, is cumulative and contagious.

Thus, the expectation of sympathy can be replaced with the insults of mockery, and any lingering sense of community can be confronted with the reality of routine rejection, humiliation, and disappointment, as well as by the plurality of sentiments that may be expressed in the process.

In addition, as a lot of victimization can occur within families and/or to and among children, so also the process of acknowledging and addressing the grief associated with the airplane hijackings, (which primarily targeted adults), has become a bit to[o] specialized and non-universal from my observation and in my opinion.”

“It seems a misnomer to consider a predisposition to ill-temper ‘heredity’ when it may well be the effect of exposure and emulation.
In addition, it would seem that such imitations could occur more frequently and/or readily following stimuli such as trauma.
Nevertheless, your ability to relate the reality of the commonality of a ‘dark side’ could likely contribute to a ‘step in the right direction’ for society, as it often [unproductively] seeks to alienate (itself from) people who do bad things out of a lack of discretion, self-restraint, etc.
+++ (portion below omitted [without indication]) +++
I don’t mean to detract from the sincerity of others’ statements and comments, but I have often considered the importance of forthrightness when communicating with people who are recuperating from trauma; and, though it may be a fine line between integrity and offense, it can seem that there is too much ‘support’ and not enough ‘constructive criticism’.
I am reminded of a certain, somewhat paradoxical, Scripture wherein a person relates a command to strike them to two people, and the one that didn’t do it got in trouble (1 Kings 20:35-43).
Without imputing a correlation to abusiveness, that Scripture has often helped to remind of the importance of forthrightness (ref. also e.g. Leviticus 19:17).
According to these notions/beliefs, I would contend that you are at times a bit too cynical in your approach to issues, often detracting from and undermining comprehensiveness and accuracy.
Moreover, I surmise that this tendency may be in part a product of any implied ‘moral authority’ that others have sought from you.
Yet, your understanding of, and approach to remedying, the situation say a lot about your [true] intentions and goals.
Related another way, and likely less accurately, it can often seem that you are trying to distinguish who your ‘real friends’ are and finding them to be, perhaps coincidentally, those who support your views.
In conclusion, although I wouldn’t generally consider you dangerous, the above situation (if occurring) could be a ‘dangerous’ one — if only for your self-image.”

As I’ve found the editing to be somewhat interpretably discriminatory, and as this is generally offensive, disturbing and/or distracting to me, I will likely discontinue posting at this blog. 


Here is a comment issued at a NHK website in February of 2012:


Although I’m a fan of NHK World News, and find it to be rather [uniquely] informative, I am concerned that there is yet room for improvement in the conduct of certain of the staff.

As it has often been my interest to communicate with other News organizations — though potentially of a different political affiliation than NHK — I also consider this response as a continuation of that effort.

For example, Sayaka Mori often seems to be giggling somewhat whereas Ferguson tends to overuse the word ‘nasty’. In addition, Kobayashi’s twitter responses can seem inconsiderate of interpretation (e.g. Feb 4).


A. M. Weitz


This composition may illustrate best — by contrast with those issued in response to FOX-related incidents — the difficulty I would expect to have at/in finding detrimental misconduct in professional broadcasting. 


Here is an email about interpreting Leonard Cohen in response to :

I often listened to this album in my teen years, and Cohen – as well as Dylan – were my primary acceptable exposure to religious views. As I was essentially forbidden to read the Bible, and as this album seemed to be more outrageous than his others (I would later have access to Songs of Love and Hate), I began to accept the striving for acceptance through rebellion as expressive of a resentment for or competition with such figures as Nostradamus (though I knew not much about him). I’d often consider the lyric along with Democracy and consider that he may have intended to remark about national expansionism and/or a resurgence of antisemitism – due in part to a lack of repentance from others. Moreover, I took his depiction of geological, tectonic and/or volcanic activity as an extension of those discussed in Dylan’s Hard Rain’s a Gonna Fall. Later, after having read the Bible, I analyzed Dylan’s Went to See the Gypsy as a corollary to LCs Story of Isaac (e.g. Story of Joseph – in Egypt). At any rate, reading your commentary was helpful as you have a broader understanding of literature and perhaps a unique perspective as well.


Here are some emails sent to L. Tomljenovic:

Do you have any additional information that might be of assistance to understanding the concepts addressed by Blaylock and Maroon, and of achieving the goal of microglial ramification? At this point, I appreciate the(ir) emphasis of the effectiveness of intervening in the excitotoxic aspect, which could make compounds like Picamilon more efficacious than I had surmised previously.
PS: I encountered this email here:;year=2011;volume=2;issue=1; spage=107;epage=107;aulast=Blaylock and subsequently learned about your involvement in vaccination safety. I have a few documents of yours that I plan to go through, but if you have any more info in that arena I would like to learn more as well.

If you are interested in learning more about me, or of my level of understanding, you can visit my blog: https://angelomichaelweitz.


Thanks Lucija. I’ve been able to access all but one (that of the largest file) of the downloads so far, and I appreciate your help. I’ve also recently been interested in learning more about biological transmutation (e.g. silicon and carbon yielding calcium; maybe you are familiar with Kervran’s work: ) and focusing on the role of silica. It seems initially that, due to its ability to detoxify aluminum, silica deficiency can lead to more problems with adjuvants of alum. In general, I have began to focus more on the role of minerals: such as the prevalence of zinc and magnesium deficiency, the impact of hypermetabolism in creating deficiency states, and the importance of detoxification pathways (e.g. selenium and cysteine as requisite for glutathione) in the safe elimination of toxins. Often it may be recommended to undertake detoxification without such considerations. I am a slow reader, however, and often struggle to both get the necessary ‘big picture’ as well as all the relevant details. Yet it seems there is public interest and necessity for more practical and safe knowledge about health issues. For example, on Yahoo’s Answers forum it is quite common to find many teens asking about and relating various disorders (and unfortunately the ridicule of others as well). I previously tried to discuss some of my insights there, e.g.: (docs available at HCU11)
So I’m perhaps more optimistic that people will begin to understand basic concepts and apply them than that a shift will occur based on appealing to the ethics of the medical community for example. Which is a view that is likely inspired by Rael D Strous’, Psychiatry during the Nazi era: ethical lessons for the modern professional as it emphasized that a high degree of ethics was already in place but was also collectively neglected.


Another factor that may benefit from more exposure is the gender-dependent variation in glutathione depletion following injury… I guess my goal is to communicate and share approaches in providing information, especially if it’s controversial. Perhaps it would increase acceptance if similar obstacles are compared together, such as the resistance to accepting biological transmutation and immunization-induced injury, and giving a tactile example – such as the dermatoglyphic study – might increase acceptance as well. But also it can be important to avoid behaviors as well. For example, in my opinion, your comparison of science and religion in your letter, “Science is not a religion in which dogmatic statements of faith can replace adequately powered, controlled, longitudinal vaccine safety studies in animals and people.” evokes potentially counterproductive sentiments and thus detracts from your argument unnecessarily (e.g. by creating a derogatory undertone that skews others’ opinion of the author or their motive). Consider that notion that Scripture may have provided insight into evolution prior to Darwin (e.g. Genesis 25:20-34, Ecclesiastes 3:9-22, Psalm 22:6) yet while also cautioning against pride (e.g. Daniel 4). Perhaps creating such an illustration of unnecessary or excessive polarity may elucidate and mitigate some of the motivations that help maintain it. An effective approach to communication may include addressing multiple issues as though they were one and vice versa, insomuch that the opportunity to reject facts becomes less tenable as it could appear more immediately detrimental to continuity.


Thanks again for your responses Lucija, I appreciate your interacting with me. Also, I can understand that you are busy, yet I hope my communication isn’t too distracting or annoying. It’s important to note that my commentary isn’t intended to reproach the validity of your (or others’) religious views, but rather as an analysis of the tactical approaches to ensuring acceptance. Maybe you have heard of Anat Baniel ? In her book Move Into Life … she discusses the importance of subtlety in neurophysiological (and practical) terms. I felt that your statement may have been too obtuse, though you were apparently intending it to strengthen your argument. Also it would be important to consider your audience, of which I am uncertain. In essence, it was difficult to eliminate the inference that vaccinations were like child-molesting priests. Thus, the emphasis of my insight is that the combined approach of ‘scare tactics’, “Please consider carefully whether you wish to be responsible for such potential outcomes should you facilitate this legislation to come to pass,” and the potential for disturbing imagery proceeding from the former, may not be as effective as the ‘group hug’ approach I have advocated. It may be an irritating nuance I have brought up, but I feel it is nonetheless relevant to consider such impacts when addressing and representing others.

Thanks again for your consideration.


“I noted on your website several mentioning of the Scriptures.” LT

I’m not sure which you are referring to, but I do quote Scripture a lot, and oftentimes it is on controversial topics. Although I wasn’t necessarily surprised by the content of your principles, I was somewhat alarmed by your expression of them. Of course, clinically, religiosity differs from religion, but I wasn’t sure if I had offended you or you intended to take the discussion in another direction. If you have any questions you would like to ask, please do so. I’ve had a question I wanted to ask you. Basically, I have some belongings I would like to redistribute to others, not only as preservation (I live in a flood zone) but also in order to help focus my attention elsewhere. Perhaps I could send you some specific journals that I’m interested in preserving, but lack the social networking to distribute effectively. Mostly, it’s a way of taking my mind off it, as I feel they may be important to others as well and I could, thru inactivity, cause their loss. I’m not sure what exactly it would be altogether – I have a few things in mind – but nothing too bulky. So please let me know, I apologize if it seems inappropriate…

P.S.: Here’s a link to one of my earliest online attempts to address a controversial subject. In it I reference Scripture a lot, in part trying to formulate a perspective I felt was not well known.


Thanks for considering my request and sharing your experiences.
PS: Here’s another document that might interest you. It’s called Freedom of Choice and Personal Security, it’s like the sequel to the former. Unfortunately my clipboard is malfunctioning, yet I have a link to the page. It is a long archive and the doc is near the bottom. Each entry has a date (time and title) and this one’s is 07/22/10.
Sorry again for any inconvenience.


I hope you won’t mind my writing you further to share some additional insights. What I’ve noticed in my life, amid coping with brain trauma, is that achieving continuity in cognitive tasks is often difficult; and that any resulting discouragement can become counterproductive – as the effort to overcome such obstacles apparently should be exercised with regularity moreso than with great ‘force’. I will try to watch the video later and give some feedback, but for now I’d like to share an observation about theological concerns. It basically revolves around the content of Ezekiel 9:4-5. I suppose in someways nostalgia and comradery can oppose one another. It appears the focus can become on standing where someone stood more than feeling what they felt (or feeling what one should feel). And similarly people may be more inclined to decipher some ‘code’ than accept and obey what is forthrightly commanded them. Personally, I find it both difficult and imperative to relate and/or record my commentary, and sharing it with others often leads to a disruption in the process of explication – as they may abruptly end communication. Here’s an excerpt from an email I sent to another which describes some of the basic concepts I attempt to communicate: “Let me explain a little a bit about the differences between Old and New Testament from my perspective. First, the NT isn’t as long and neither is the history; also one is left to consider the few OT references within the context given and as a support of the arguments made. And, especially with Paul, and as his writings are more prolific than the others’, it can seem that his doctrines are accepted due primarily to his issuing them — irrespective of merit, and even if Christ forbid some of them (eg. being considered ‘lord’ etc.). Thus, in the OT we learn also about the consequences of rebellion — as when the law pertaining to the liberation of servants, being deliberately broken during Jeremiah’s record, led to the delivering of the people to Nebuchadnezzar. Another problem within Paul’s writings is that he says that all leaders are instituted by God — a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, who was considered God’s servant, that doesn’t discourage the concomitant rebellion and attempts to create in every leader the attributes of authorization and delegation. He also remarks about Hagar being a ‘bondwoman’ when people were told not to trust that they were children of Abraham. So it is that one would expect the rebuttal and reproof of Islam — and it’s also inappropriate to call your brother a ‘fool’ as many Christians attempt to do and worse, to what end they themselves have likely not thoroughly considered. So I tend to consider these notions and commandents when I read the NT. For example, although Paul’s writing is more prolific, I personally don’t value it as much as ‘Jude’ — and compel others not to judge the Qur’an or Islam without considering the inadmissibility of rebellion and the impact of provocation. Again, when I was younger, especially during trauma and/or persecution, I would be convinced that Christ had appeared to dispel the rumors I had heard and warn and encourage me to pursue the goal I felt was instilled in me, to warn others of the dangers of a tsunami (when I was attacked at 9 there was a major quake not much later, and I attributed the behavior as a response to the tectonic strain as it was irrational, and wasn’t able to convince others about Christ or really feel they even believed me as people tended to search for other answers and I didn’t want to ignore their interests). […] I recall that in previous rebellions of Benjamin, how Judah was commanded to be the first to fight and would suffer a lot of casualties (eg. Ref. Judges). Though proclaiming the exact theological relevance [of the events I relate] is difficult, it is [often] implied that it has to do with interfaith relations and the admissibility of Paul and/or his teachings. So it is that a lot of what I do can be controversial, especially as people disregard the precedent of Scripture and are more interested in maintaining their arguments and conclusions — though I don’t always conclude anything too certainly in this regard, but rather make a valid comprehensive thesis as to why a certain position would be acceptable; especially when considering new ‘evidence’. So my goal has not always been delivering people’s lives per se, but providing a basis for interfaith relations that are based in Scripture.”

PS: Don’t feel compelled to respond to me if you are busy are disinterested, and feel welcome to take your time otherwise. Again, I hope you won’t mind if at times it seems I’m more interested in task completion and view correspondence as a means of improving and maintaining my communication skills.


I thought it would be important for you to have my feedback on the effect your tenor had on me: Perhaps as I was expecting 1) that you had heard at least something about me & this is why you seemed so eager to communicate and 2) and that you wouldn’t bring up religion; I may have been and/or felt a little offended at any insinuation that mine was somehow invalid or inferior, and presumably in part in response to that, I found myself perhaps overreacting on a hot day with a man I was wondering was (also) gang-affiliated and/or otherwise motivated against me in a discernibly potentially unlawful manner–and later found this to be the case.


Again, my aim was to try to provide feedback for your interactions w/ others rather than to accuse or implicate you. I understand you’re busy, thanks for replying.


Again, thanks for your reply. You can access some more commentary at my blog (e.g. Sa, 15.6.13, 20:29+ & Th, 15.8.13, 14:37+); but in general my use of exercise follows the same principle as with communication: regularity is more imperative for rehabilitation than intensity. And, just as the cerebellum tends to remain more functional in CTE, et al. it would appear that the use of similar exercises, such as Anat Baniel recommends, could help preserve &or proliferate neurological health. Understandably, religion can be a contentious issue, and describing the sentiments and experience of witnessing or experiencing persecution can be difficult. So at times I might pursue artistic expression to communicate or assist in communicating certain aspects or achieving other goals.

Also, I’ve been utilizing Twitter more and my account is @angeloweitz

Take care, and please ask any more specific questions you like–at times it seems you are still establishing your own views and I’m glad you are willing to express them and share the processes involved.


Here’s another portion of the email you were questioning about: (Reverse order)

It’s relevant to consider the precedent for discerning the holy, clean and unclean when considering Greek Scriptures. Of particular note is Leviticus 4-11 and Haggai 1-2 (with particular emphasis placed on L 7.1 and 10.1 and H 2.10-14). Also, although it’s often commonplace amid proselytizing to engage in a ‘piecemeal’ analysis of Scripture, it would seem self-evident that this approach is not always thorough enough, but rather more expressly aimed at achieving conversion or justification for aberration.

I think classifying the Scriptures as Hebrew and Greek (v. Old and New) is important. Thanks for the reminder.

I agree that the Apocrypha is more of a history and yet an important one at that. But I don’t always value every book equally, and accept there may be erroneous doctrines — it’s why I make sure to focus on Old Testament more.

About the Scriptures of Paul, I have read them a few times as with all the Bible, but I don’t always aggree with him. For me reading the Bible was prohibited while I was growing up. My dad, a heroine addict who blamed me for getting him in treatment (I was maybe 6 at the time) would often rage against Christ and argue in favor of Judas I. I was beaten pretty severely at age nine and believed Christ appeared to witness that my dad was lying (that he wasn’t the devil as he had claimed — not that I had believed my dad — but he would argue both as though the Bible said so and that the devil would appear as light) and I tried to explain but wasn’t believed. But I didn’t read the Bible until I was 18. By the way, I was also very isolated in my youth and didn’t get exposed to religion. I didn’t know anything about it really. Sorry if my life is somewhat strange.

P.S: Also, a lot of my recent tweets are about theology.


Health and Caution (Update) 12

In Uncategorized on December 4, 2013 at 4:38 am


Visit also HCU11 and @angeloweitz (Twitter).


Th, 5.12.13, 21:07+

One of the ways I’ve been focusing my attention toward ascertaining and/or discerning preemptive data pertaining to an IGE-R is by playing more music. After I had changed primary locations from Tracy to Holt, and had encountered problems with intimidation and threats, I played significantly less music and pursued physical training (e.g. swimming, martial arts, etc.) more vigorously. Now I have been reincorporating wind, string and percussion instruments — with an emphasis on breathing (e.g. recorder, quena, etc.)  into my activities. Some of the music I have found to be more relevant to the cultural expression of the impact and/or communication of tectonic strain are songs like Tanko Bushi and Mort Stevens’ Hawaii Five-0 theme — though this affect may stem from how my dad (and I) used to watch H50 and the similarity of TB to Dylan’s, Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door.


I’ve found myself to be more inclined to talk and associate with people, often expressing my experiences and concerns, and relating the importance of maintaining a professional and/or stable tenor amid communicating the data to others and the challenge that this has been for me. In this regard I have found pursuing music and exercise to be rather effective for this application.


F, 6.12.13, 12:15+

As a generalization, I tend to recount things less confidently than may be the actuality. This contributes to many goals including caution, supporting further introspection, appearing less controversial, and allowing the opportunity for [unwarranted] dissent and accusation. However, I find the process of relating details to be very imperative to processing events productively and efficiently — in order to gain clarity in pursuit of more data and to achieve the effect of moderation mentioned above.


F, 18.4.14, 14:54+

I’ve been utilizing Twitter more and also trying to communicate more with news organizations. At this time I do not have an accurate estimate of when a west coast IGE[-R]/tsunami may occur. My last awareness of a tsunami occurred in relation to the recent one in Chile (although I was not able to feel confident enough in verifying accuracy or location, the ensuing LA quake and South America tsunami did seem to be what I was anticipating to likely occur). I did not however release any formal warning but rather filmed a video of me trying to communicate the concern non-verbally During the filming I had also become aware of the death of a specific individual and began to interpret and express that as well as consider theological implications.

An important note is that I had recently endured some self-inflicted brain trauma after having an encounter with an individual I later learned to have a similar and/or more severe predilection for self-harm. I was able to meet them again after the incident and shared some health information and resources as well as more information about matters I had already discussed with them pertaining to my concerns and activities related here. At this point I am focusing on maintaining and improving my health and preparing for the possibility to acquire more relevant information regarding tsunamis – though I’ve also had concern for a continued responsibility for acquiring awareness of events pertaining to security in relation to acts of aggression.


Su, 8.6.14, 17:45+

For the past several months I’ve been trying to focus more on addressing the theological conceptualization of genocide, primarily intending to aid the prevention of any misapplication of my endeavors and/or the responses to them. I’ve often utilized an audio recorder and shared the files with some without expecting communication or feedback.
[It can be important to note the influence evaluations can have on the tenor and content of these recordings (and in other documents), as the necessity to strive for integration amid rejection and/or persecution make them more valuable toward the aims of security, etc., and since the lack of acknowledgment, feedback or interaction with me creates difficulties in assessing the probabilty that relayed information will be utilized and/or the proclivity for its misuse (added Sa, 28.6.14, 12:20+).
Another note is that much of the audio recordings and other (email/twitter) interaction following the aforementioned trauma focused inevitably on recuperation, communication and regaining accuracy–as well as evaluating others’ intentions–and so I was perhaps less inhibited and more inclined to ‘force errors’ than otherwise. (Added 19.2.15, ~12:03)]


M, 18.8.14, 7:35+

I recently (9.8.14) attended a social gathering and became aware of pending events while discussing various topics with others. I was able to verify the death of a specific celebrity in great detail and was apparently becoming aware of recent kidnappings. I had been discussing physiology and research and began to include some of my experiences and thus focused on explaining and communicating the process of awareness. As usual I began to talk faster and lead the conversation in a manner necessitating or requesting little verbal feedback. I achieved this in part by utilizing humor and satire. I also focused on making the experience more appropriate and less disturbing to others while trying to cover a wider array of topics in a relative and often personal way (e.g. politics, religion, science, ethics, morality, etc.).

Visit also Additional Notes HCU


F, 8.5.15, 11:55+

After the brain trauma mentioned above (18.4.14) I experienced quite significant deterioration of health though I knew and applied many things I hadn’t previously (both occurrences–the other happening after Hurricane Katrina–likely followed blood donations, which implicates various physiological factors in addition to other stresses). I also was having difficulty coping with increasing demands–some occuring amid threats or otherwise volatile situations. In many ways I had to readapt and yet overcome some of the initial concerns (such as for terrorism, tsunami) that had been influential in the amount of stress I had encountered.

Recently I became reacquainted with the woman that had broken up with me prior to my complete awareness of the events of 9/11 and whom also, when confronting me with the ‘silent treatment’ (though the scenario appeared to lack premeditation it did occur with group compliance and have intimidation, defamation, etc as aims) during a party, I related other security concerns I became aware of to (along with the group)–specifically the interaction between the Iran and US Navy.

She, somewhat perplexingly in a manner a lot like^ that of the pregnant woman I helped in 2014, began to pursue a sexual relationship with me–and both were likewise variously abusive, derogatory, condescending and/or opportunistic in any opposition to my reluctance.

At one point, in March, I engaged in sexual activity after prolonged pressure, more immediate intimidation, subtle/sinister/suspicious harrassment and/or humiliation, and in part from [a response to] considering (and/or being reminded of) prior occurences of similar behaviors/situations and/or their preceding or presaging other [malicious] actions (and my awareness of them). That day was particularly stressful and/or exhausting for me otherwise insomuch that I was experiencing certain difficulties mostly related to trauma at the time.

She had seemed intent on promoting a way of life or perhaps a politicized antagonism to religion whereas I had initially became involved to help her with a medical condition as well as with one of another of her friends.

After discontinuing sexual relations (other times I more thoroughly resisted) she became upset and refuses to interact with me at all. At one point prior to this I had asked to know if she had conceived (she would also imply a threat to any unborn or potentially conceived child based on an evaluation of my conduct which was irrationally accusatory at times and appeared yoked to my pursuit of security) so that I could be equally (as others involved in security would be) aware of the scenario as it had the potential to aggravate e.g. theologically-inspired acts of aggression.

She had also seemed intent or fixated on attaining a ‘revenge’ (which appeared to have a sentimental basis in the confrontation at the party and likely the later responses to and/or manipulation/portrayal of it by any of the group–though she claimed to have authentically forgotten it ever happened which I didn’t contend so much as illustrate that it’s still possible for formed, corrupted and/or repressed memories to be thuswise influential) that involved misattributing actions to me (a scenario, in hindsight, I recall from earlier times wherein she also overtly, publicly and/or intentionally misrepresented me) and/or ‘righting a wrong’ that was assessed to have occurred [essentially] by my [very] existence.

As this thought process* is more prevalent in Democrat-affiliated peoples, and as both her and the other appeared to have an issue with me via presuming, caricaturising or exaggerating an(y) antagonism, I became somewhat more concerned about the nature of any intimidation applied or inherent–specifically as to whether it would be ‘too much’ in regard to national and international law and/or any attending, developing or controversial situations or applications.

This consideration in itself brings an interesting observation: if it isn’t or hasn’t been deemed ‘too much’ at this point, the set point would have to have been intentionally or negligently allowed to allow for the attainment of some and/or specific illegitimate aims and to be characteristically too counterproductive to retain any integrity as such (i.e. a set point).

Thus the gravity of the concern comes primarily from the [denied] severity and/or applicability (e.g. for evaluation) of the demonstration of [allowing/promoting/enjoying mis]conduct and its significance for the claims and pursuits of standardization or exemplification entities may possess.

*Afterword: There is also a subtle but serious ‘background’ concern pertaining to the manner in which a) rejecting/denying/mischaracterizing/etc me and/or facts, b) glorifying Judas I. and/or betrayal, and c) the promotion of selectively eliminating life has occurred–specifically that it a/b/c) sadistically, opportunistically, etc encourages [unpardonable] blasphemy, and c) manifests as a predilection for eradication/genocide (both which can appear rather to have stronger influence on motive than purported aims).
Added 20.5.15 ~2:30

^Moreover, both women had utilized a stereotypical characterization of race relations in their accusation, intimidation, self (et al.)-justification, etc which represented as an exuberance at, authorization or promotion of the subversive use of the communal conceptualization of equality to abet personal/collective oppression and pervert the cause/integrity of interracial/interfaith relations. This type of mockery and/or criminality eventually led me to consider them in relation to another which resulted in a diminution of confidence in their salvation–at least at times–and proved to be nonetheless (e.g. although not necessarily in the manner intended) [inevitably] authentically disturbing.
Added 20.5.15 ~19:15