Archive

Archive for July, 2019

Cryptid Insects / Mystery Bugs – Yes, They Exist

Today I saw a beetle with amazing color at my house, I have never seen anything like it. Here is a list of the details.

1. Large black eyes that bulged
2. A yellow abdomen with dark thin stripes, maybe 6-8 stripes
3. black antennae, nothing unusual
4. It seemed almost an inch long and half as wide, roughly, it was not thin, I only saw it clear from the underside, while it flew it appeared to have dark wings/top shell and it’s exposed back looked a light greenish color, but I never saw what the top shell was like as it was in flight and when it hung on a bush was hanging from the bottom.
5. When it saw me it instantly took off and flew high easily and quickly away, not super fast but wow fast as if despite being heavy-like was no problem for it to fly.
6. I didn’t see any jaws. So it wasn’t prominent.
7. Seemed to have black legs

I never heard of or saw a beetle with a yellow abdomen till investigating today

Ironically I recently read an article by some obvious stupid evolutionist/atheist with the title, “Why Are There No Cryptid Insects?” But that’s now the 6th unidentified insect I’ve seen, or 7th even. It’s the most beautiful beetle I’ve seen besides those small round types with irridescent and partly transparent shells.

These are not it:

https://bugguide.net/node/view/1387006

https://www.insectidentification.org/beetles.asp

https://www.flickr.com/photos/guppiecat/15230031222

as it had thin stripes on it’s belly

Another cryptid insect I saw was maybe in 2000, in a forest near Reston, VA, saw a fly moving like a robotic drone with perfect precision flight, there were no wobbles, it turned like a machine. It was clearly a fly with cicada killer mimic camo, I saw however it was not a cicada killer as it had fly type eyes, not wasp, and no wasp jaws, though did not make out the structural details of its mouth. These insect must be rare.

In 2012 perhaps, in Henderson, NV in a horrid desert area, saw a fly maybe twice the size of the house fly type, it was white with black stripes it seemed, the head may have been black, it stayed too far away and kept moving too much for me to note precise details.

In 2017 in this same area but at a creek saw in the corner of my eye saw what seemed like a yellow dragon fly, but with a cone shaped body and missing the middle part dragon flies have and had shown up at the same time a large common type had that I was watching, and it seemed the same size. It disappeared too quickly for me to see directly. It looked as if it might have been the same type as the one shown on the jimharold site.

So much for no such thing as cryptid insects.

Why Atheism and Atheists Are Destructive To Civilization

Besides the obvious examples of mass murderers Stalin and Mao and the atheist-magic-believing anti-Christian, Hitler, who had indirectly murdered way, waaaay more people than even Catholics (unless perhaps if you count abortions, but Russian and Chinese communist-atheists may still be ahead there, especially if counting atheistic Buddhists), here’s super obvious reasons why and why atheists always remain a minority:

1. God-denial or divinity denialism to coin a new phrase is apparently born of bittnerness at life. An extreme bitterness, so extreme that it severely stunts an atheist’s ability to think rationally and without making the mistakes that make them qualify as hypocrites. That bitterness causes them to, out of bitterness (a kind of bottled up rage I suppose it could be called) deny the obvious or delude themselves into not believing it, and it takes up so much of their mental energy and causes their moral boundries (if they ever had any substantial ones) to disolve, so that being self-centered is no problem to them, like dwelling on mainly their needs, opinions, feelings and pain non-stop) that they, end up, just stupid. They end up ranting or having little anything or nothing useful to say regarding anything, scientific or not. In short, their anger and desire for revenge, like some stereotypical incel constantly distracts them and prevents them from doing much of anything useful, and progressing in knowledge and understanding. It works out the same way for anyone who isn’t an atheist and dwells on “how horrible God is for denying me that beautiful female, or sex with kids, or torturing kids and dogs for fun, or not being allowed to rape the weak, or sex with my sister, or slaving someone, or being made king of the world,” or how horrible God is for, “killing my sister when young, or embarassing me for letting me do something stupid in public and mocked over it,” or “for killing my sister who was a good person” and on and on. Atheism = “God is evil for making me feel bad, I don’t deserve to be mistreated by God, therefore I will deny his existence and deny I do anything bad to avoid further feeling bad”. Or can be defined as, “a belief or alleged belief in the non-existence of any being with superior intelligence and morality to themselves out of arrogant delusion and/or a revulsion of being made to feel unhappy about themselves.”

2. That bitterness and arrogant attitude (or narcissism) sets in motion the potential for any crime: child abuse, mass murder, ANYTHING.

3. Atheism necessarily denies any universal objective good or truth. Why? Morals are a set of information, laws, and unless there’s some reason to believe in universal morals (as in morals that are permanent and not subject to change, like the wrongness of lying and hownit should be totally avoided), such morals don’t originate with humans, as humans themselves deny morality has it source in them and can show it with proofs. Though some atheists claim it was humans who invented morallity, they have no proof and by making such a claim are claiming that “to not lie and to only tell the truth” is merely a human invention and not something necessarily true or to be obeyed as 1) there’s no permanent Hell for a liar to face 2) there’s no reason one should never lie and always be truthful as morality is relative to the human who comes up with or has morals. But suppose some atheist says, “No, there is definite evil, like “mindlessly obeying Jesus (whatever that would mean – as if Jesus ever said, “kill everyone who denies communism is best” or “lie, steal and murder” or the atheist says, “it’s wrong to lie, steal and murder because it just is, there’s no explaining why, no need for God or threats of Hell, it’s just bad”. So them, whether that even makes half sense or not, does the atheist then admit that when reasonably possible all lying, theft and murder should be punished? NO, because no atheist holds to a Biblical standard of “it’s simply not ‘good'” or “as defined by God”, and makes exceptions for “acceptable lying, theft and murder/killing”, even Sam Harris said so in one his books, that some people should be killed based alone on what they believe, and saying the type of belief qualifying a killing would be a “dangerous belief”. He obviously doesn’t consider the denial of absolute right from wrong or redefining theft, lying and murder or the belief that somd people deserve (such as himself) whatever they want, as “dangerous”. And dangerous to what or whom anyways, and in a world wherd there’s no Hell or Heaven and life could end in a blink why would any atheist’s beliefs about right from wrong matter than anyone elses? The Bible itself says that if death is the end then live how you want, as you may die the next day, and it’s just before the next day for you, it’s sure true.

4. Some atheists imply they hold life more dear than a Christian believing in permanent Hell as they’ll say, “You only live ones (so have as much fun as you can”), but a Christian would treasure life even more for the obvious reason: “if you don’t obtain God’s love you will suffer (possibly alone or among those you hate), forever”. Note: most false Christians don’t associate God’s love with protection/and salvation from Hell, but the true ones do. Some atheists hope in time travellers to rescue them I’d bet, or reincarnation, so even less so would they care about life.

5. Atheists, the more ignorant and hateful ones lump all religions and religious theists together as all the same and equally harmful and with no regard for their accomplishments or the age of the adherents (as in calling an eight-year old Christian ‘deluded, stupid, destructive and evil’) as if endless eight-year old Christians demonstrated that, when there are clear distinctions. Atheists themselves hate to be classified and “labelled” and “judged” as all being alike, so then why they do so to Christians, Judaics, Mulims or even Buddhists? Literal Christian law rejects all idols and worship of anything less than Supreme and murder, so how is it comparable with idol-ridden sexist Hinduism and idol-ridden Catholicism with it’s plague of gay priests, child aborting hetros and mass murderers (of about 50 million in Europe and Israel)? Islam and so on is not Reformed Southern Baptist, at all, and Reformed Southern Baptist is very disimilar from a Christian religion that refuses to identify as Reformed or Calvinistic but only as “fundamentalist” which at one time may have sufficed but now maybe a cover for a militant religion that seeks the death of anyone who isn’t Christian and holding “free will” to be “sacred and intrinsic and above God’s will) and doesn’t want to see gays, blacks and Muslims all hanging from whatever. But atheists in ignorance don’t know these distinctions, nor care even knowing them, as they are swimming in bitterness and wrong self-assuredness and abhor feeling wrong, so refuse to admit being wrong. If they here some truth that doesn’t fit their truth, they forget it or claim it’s merely a lie or think up some irrational argument against it and not caring about any errors in their argument or going with it anyways in futility as they’re sure, or hope they right anyways about their one central belief that God simply doesn’t exist, or even if so, doesn’t care about what he made.

Now, who would you trust to care for you or your disabled paralyzed kid or kid in chronic pain or with severe autism: someone who describes themselves as, “I don’t believe it’s always wrong to steal, lie or murder as most of the world has believed for thousands of years or those delusional awful hypocrite Christians and their terrible sex-hating boring Jesus who probably didn’t even exist or was just a magician, I believe in doing what makes me feel good so long as I think I’ll get away with it till I’m so old I’ll probably die soon before someone harms me for it”, or, “I believe in ‘as you would have done to you so do to others’ and practice this because by doing so everyone in general who follows that comes closer to what they want without offending others and causing fights, and because I have a loving God who showed me by example it’s the best way to live, and is working within me to adhere to that way of life”?

Again, who would you trust, “I do and think as I please no matter how extreme” or, “I obey the ten commandments well and the golden rule because I love to and God will permanently reward me for good deeds”? It’s super SUPER obvious who is more trustworthy or likely to be. If one has witnesses or documentation to back up being a moral person, why would you choose an atheist, who thinks or to annoy, says spending $500 million to build a telescope is just as useful as giving every poor person in America an equal share of that money, and billions more? What the is a bigger or more powerful scope going to do for America or anyone? But atheists in extreme spite and for the love of grant money and friendship with other useless God-haters love spending money on useless things.

Proof Congresswoman ilhan Omar is a Racist Liar Who Married Her Brother

These aren’t rumors, but facts backed up by pictures/screenshots and official documents. Wikipedia is falsely claiming it’s a conspiracy theory. There’s even some wacko know-it-all “ex-lawyer” (great credential!) “Charles” on quora making a faps3 and absurd lie that “the press corps” (what the hell is that?!) disproved this with DNA, wow, just lies!

Key smoking gun (besides the pictures and social media admissions by Ilhan’s brother: her first known husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, has the same birthdate as a man with the same name that his fellow students say had the same dad as Ilhan (as in the dad has the same name), the same as that of her brother (who in social media posts twice was pictured with Ilhan), a brother she has not publically disclosed as a sibling/brother (and she will not give out the last names of her family, why? Because their real last names is ‘not’ Omar, but ‘Elmi’). Ilhan and others of her family lied about their last names in order to claim relationship to the Omar (Somali) family for quick access to U.S. and U.K. citizenship. Ahmad was apparently intelligent enough stay outside of America, probably realizing that if he were found out would be the target of harassment and would have had a chance of being arrested by ICE (the immigration police).

New Evidence Supports Claims That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother


100% Proof Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

ilhan’s Brother Caught Lying About His Education

Why Is This Now New News?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ilhan_Omarilhan Omar Charged With Fraud

INCEST OMAR: Loomer Launches New Merch to Raise Awareness About Ilhan Omar Marrying Brother

Star-Tribune wrote it, “could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.”

Snopes.com in February 2019, said “the evidence uncovered thus far isn’t definitive enough to come down on one side or the other.”

For those of you liberals who wonder why I care, it’s because 1. I’m Jewish, or consider myself so as my dad is Jewish (I do not care that in Judaism the mom only counts – it’s a racist doctrine, as Abraham was called the first “Jew” and yet is an Assyrian, and Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian, yet clearly God had considered Moses’ future family line as being sufficient as Jews when God pretended he was about to wipe out most of or half the Jews who were rebellious). 2. Laura Loomer is Jewish and racists within the liberal community are persecuting her and calling her a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia. 3. On Quora I see a shady guy calling himself “Charles” and an “ex-lawyer” with an unbelievable “24,000+” answers on Quora.com (and a significant yet underwhelming following of 9,900 followers) gave a very suspicious answer about Ilhan, by outright lying and using the infantile and illogical claim that to consider a false accusation is “old hat” that is (possibly) 9 years old (what matters is if it’s true, and it’s coming to light in mass as she became a government official whose opposing the president, all Jews and who can sabotage America via its immigration laws). Something of an interesting side note is that the expression/term/phrase, “old hat” is sexist:

“slang. The vulva. Also: sexual intercourse; a woman regarded as a means of sexual gratification. Now arch. and rare.” – Oxford Dictionary. Ironically the very term “old hat” there is claimed to be a near extinct phrase, itself, old. It originally seems to have meant, “a woman who was only good for sex due to her uselessness and old age” or “a female only good for sex as her vagina has been repeatedly used for sex by more than one male, in otherwords, a “slut”. Shouldn’t Charles, playing know-it-all ex-lawyer (he’s a writer for Apple Inc., too, allegedly) have been careful not to use a sexist expression? It is evidence that Charles is carelessly posting answers. Further evidence is that the expression the way he implied it shows an illogical and criminal state of mind as it’s meaning morphed to, include, “colloq. In predicative use: something considered to be old-fashioned, out of date, unoriginal, or hackneyed.” Since when would wondering about a recently discovered accusation be, “unoriginal” or “old-fashioned”. “Out of date” is an expression itself that refers to style and as such is itself discriminatory/prejudiced then against clothing choice, makeup and hairstyle and by extension then, the treasured doctrine of “liberal diversity”. So, Charles isn’t even using the term correctly and ironically one that itself is considered “out of fashion” to even use and not original/no longer new. Charles meant however, “old news” (apparently trying to force a new meaning to sound clever, original and wise by using a rare term – talk about “weird” and nonsensical”!)

Does it’s older use matter? Of course it does, because in a very large population who seeks information on everything and regarding a very controversial topic in tbe major news people will end up digging into everything, and ironically this topic was something that required some deep digging!

Anne Curzan, an English professor at the University of Michigan claims that the obsolete (pardon this side-topic pun) use of words and phrases no longer counts as what the meaning was replaced with, which true or not, doesn’t excuse Charles’ dually wrong use 1. It’s more modern use applies to fashion 2. He meant it to mean “a topic so old everyone knew about it and that’s been disproven”. 1. It was never a widely known topic as Ilhan herself was obscure and rarely in the news. 2. Again, a thing’s age has nothing to do with it being true or false, it’s grossly childish thinking, like saying, “the Bible is old, so we should completely ignore it” or “climate change”, “rape”, “homosexuality”, “lying”, “evolution”, “evil”. It’s as childish as the expression “judgmental”, itself in it’s modern usage a nonsensical phrase.

The 3rd reason I care about Ilhan’s criminal acts and words, specifically her unlawful marraige is that I don’t think this news has gotten the attention it deserves, as it shows how gullible people, liberal or not, can be in accepting someone merely for the sake of “diversity” (which seems to me to be a word liberals are using out of their dislike for the traditional liberal pretentious ideal of total “unity”/agreement, which truly just meant, “agreement with liberal beliefs/philosophy” – but of course has a conotation of accepting even Christian fundamentalist beliefs which liberals despise, so, they switched to “diversity”, meaning in liberal context, “you don’t have to agree with everyone and any claim like that blacks are mentally inferior, but treat everyone equally under the law, like gays who wish to have the same marraige rights as hetros”, which itsef is hypocritical and impossible as liberals cannot even agree when human life becomes human, and so denies the rights of defenseless babies, and cannot agree when even a preteen child – if at all – should have the right to suicide or have an so called “sex-change”!).

Liberlism is very convoluted. I think too conservatism is too, and perhaps worse, as it seems to imply the Bible sanctions free speech, even lying of the kind liberals use to destroy conservatism. What conservatives fear is their “free speech” to question anything held sacred or “mainstream” or to blaspheme or make statements that merely over being disagreeable, being used to prosecute, censure and execute them over, a fear or concern due to the Catholic Church (a Christian-pagan cult, with an anti-Jewish streak) having used religious doctrines they held sacred (and the Puritans who misused evidence of witchcraft) to do such things. But the conservative and liberal method of dealing with the Catholic and Puritan misuse of religious doctrine is no better. It should never be legal to sanction what traditionally is considered blasphemy or malicious speech that is meant to incite violence or strife, especially random, like a verbal dirty bomb. Example, if I say, “Liberals and conservatives are both fags” or, “Christians are deluded liars”, it should be a criminal slander offense, but ones being broad like that with no direct blasphemy should have a death penalty, just some fine, community service, public rebuke, or a three days in jail. The worse the maliciousness the worse the punishment. Example, if I said, “kids should be tortured for fun”, I’d say that’s six months slaving in some farm, or a year in jail, second offense, double, third, triple, and so on or being committed to a maximum security mental institution until it can be determined by twelve psychologist that whoever said that is not a psychopath or narcissist (two types of mentally ill humans I believe should be in prisons for the insane and pathologically dangerous).

Ilhan’s crimes merit deportation back to Somalia. However, if she admitted the truth, recanted that Jews have magically put the world in a trance (much of the world is disgusted by Jews, so how would that even come close to being true?) and was willing to spend a year in a prison in her home state learning to tolerate Jewish diversity and hear the Bible read each day, I’d say let her stay. That is merciful, unlike Sharia-Muslim law, requiring upwards of 80-200+ lashings with a pronged whip, and even being stoned to death. The Bible only calls for forty lashes for FALSE WITNESS and stoning only by someone who is considered morally pure – part of God’s wise and merciful way of “checks and balances”, till Christ’s return.