baker act and the 4th

the 4th amendment to the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today we watch Mr. Trump in yet another meeting  with lawmakers  at capital . they were discussing ways tostop the next school shooter . there was a a bunch of ideas discussed  a lot of good ideas , and then while they were discussing  the Baker act , which is  await to put  someone that is  not psychologically stable  into the hospital for 72 hours  with or without their permission , president Trump said  something that is bothering a lot of us . he said that  if a person is Baker acted  they should st take their weapons and worry about justice later .

Now  since we know that  a person is going to do a school shooting is not in their right mind, once the person is Baker acted , law enforcement would go before a judge in an ex parte and provide compelling  evidence  either  by  the shooter’s writings  showing  that he will commit this act , or a doctors note staining the person is a danger to themselves or others . At that point the judge would then sign a warrant for the temporary seizure of his firearms until a full hearing can be held as to if that person can get the weapons back. As judges are on call for search warrents this should not be a big deal to be done with in the 72 hour period.

This is about the only way that this could be done legaly in my opinion. If this procedure is not in the bill it should be thrown out.


This is my take after watching the sad event that happened in Texas during the cold wave.

from what I have read, this was a cascade failure of the power grid Precipitated by the green new deal. Texas relied on approx. 25% green energy for its grid. The cold  wave that came in froze the wind mills; causing a loss of 25%. Normally this would be picked up by the non green power plants( gas, coal, nuke), however, when Texas asked the EPA for a temporary increase in it’s emissions, the EPA said GTH, grab from neighboring states and for that you will be charged 1900/mw compared to 9$. Texas is not setup to do a lot of power sharing, so that didnt work well.

By the time Texas was able to get permission for an increase in emissions, it was too late. pump stations and equipment had already froze. the natural gas pumps could not supply the needed gas for the power plants to increase production, substations were frozen, power lines had issues. And just like that over 4 million people were without power due to green energy.

A cascade failure due to the Green New Deal is what happened.

Now the left is saying that if Texas had more green energy it would have helped? really?

Power systems have to be balanced and not dependant on 1 source. we are not to the point that green energy is sustainable and reliable.

culture of ??fear??

I have a few words for the left.

stop using fear to make everyone else afraid when you, yourself will do things that put you in fear(supposedly)

just heard a report from a liberal that went to fla for the ball game. she was complaining that she was afraid because she saw so many unmasked and enjoying themselves in large groups.

if your so afraid, why didnt you leave and get out of there? no, you stayed and enjoyed yourself. and now that it is done, you use the fear factor to try to make a point and make everyone feel sorry for you. sorry, I dont feel any empathy with you. you had a chance to get out and didnt. this is no more than fear mongering. pushing the narrative. open your eyes folks and learn. if you know someplace doesnt fit your fears, then leave , dont go. if you do go? dont try and make an emotional play to get someones pity.

this whole thing seems driven by fear. when in actuallity, you look and read, its not that bad. STOP THE FEAR CULTURE FOR POLITICS.


After The 2nd Failed Impeachment

After the last week there are some points I would like to make.

We have seen where the house and senate are run by 4 people. Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconell, and Schiff.

This last impeachment showed us that the parties are no longer interested in following their oath. They voted to bypass the constitution and the plain wording it proffers. In their anger, In the first vote, they decided that the constitution did not matter. they voted that a bill of attainer could be used against a private citizen. That when the constitutional argument they were using was meant solely to take an official out of the office after a serious legal issue, they disregarded the meaning of it. they disregarded the same argument that all the courts have been using to throw out any election challenge, that of Laches.  y6u see, the only remedy offered under the constitutional law they used was eviction from office, THEN the optional remedy of no longer being able to hold office again.

Article 1 section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The way it is written, you must satisfy the first before you can do the second. . since President Trump had already left office there was no way to satisfy the first, namely removal from office.

Article 1 secton 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

BILL OF ATTAINDER, legislation, punishment. An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated.
     2. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder.
     3. During the revolutionary war, bills of attainder, and ox post facto acts of confiscation, were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good. Story on Const. Sec. 1367. Vide Attainder; Bill of Pains and Penalties.
Since President Trump was a civilian at the time of his trial, any finding by the senate would constitute a bill of attainer.

Next point. This trial was not run by evidence, as much as fear and hate. The prosecutions case relied on the members remembering the recent fear they experienced in the overtaking of the capitol building. they made sure to play hours of video showing the break-in and over taking of the building. they presented almost no evidence for what they charged. the prosecution presented a lot of hearsay, news reports, and doctored evidence. they changed the charges mid stream from the events of the day, to include everything from the day Trump came down the elevator. They even added charges in the middle of the trial, saying they were implied. However in any court case you can not charge someone with an implied charge, it must be written out.

Then we come down to the verdict, which clearly was known even before the trial. The members of the senate were told how to vote by their leadership.  The democrats were not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the charges. All they were allowed is orange man bad.

I do not know what President Trump did to make them so mad and hate him like they do. However there seems to be nothing but hate from the left. It has to be more than he beat her in the 2016 run.  As there was nothing but hate from before he even got off the stairs.

I am pretty sure we are in the midst of a giant cancel culture thing on this election. We are being told that what we saw is not what we saw.  There have been hearings, sworn statements, and even video’s that questioned the election. yet we are told there was nothing. We have a full county of commisioners that are getting away with disregarding the states attempts at verifying the election. And yes, I do understand that our election can influence the world. As the voting system that is being challenged is used world wide, and if proven to “shift” votes instead of simply counting them, it could topple some governments(???Burma???).

At this point, all I am sure of is this is a mess. Our government has forsaken its bible of the constitution. And we have 2-4 people running the country, instead of 457. That the judicial is as corrupt as the legislative, and our executive is a farce. I wish it otherwise. the point we are at??? We maybe at the end or in the very least ripe for takeover by a foreign country. We need to get it right.



Pfizer shot

Below are extracts from the emergency use application for the Pfizer “vaccine” you will see, that, this is a dangerous shot with no knowledge of any long term dangers. While reading thru the many charts I found very little good compared to the placebo.  The shot v placebo provides more complications. There are also some doubts as to effectiveness by the board.



[ vak-seen or, especially Britishvak-seen, -sin ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for vaccine on


any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.

the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.

a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses, as by detecting them and warning the user.


Messenger RNA (mRNA)

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made. During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.


(emphasis added by me)

from the EUA

  1. Executive Summary
    On November 20, 2020, the Sponsor (Pfizer, on behalf of Pfizer and BioNTech) submitted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine
    (BNT162b2) intended to prevent COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The vaccine is based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S)
    antigen encoded by RNA and formulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The proposed use under an EUA is “for active immunization for the prevention of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in
    individuals 16 years of age and older.” The proposed dosing regimen is 2 doses, 30 µg each, administered 21 days apart.

pg 7
• The chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent referred to in the March 27, 2020, EUA declaration by the Secretary of HHS (SARS-CoV-2) can cause a
serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

2.3. EUA Request for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)
Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, is developing a vaccine to prevent
COVID-19 which is based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S) antigen encoded by RNA and formulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNP). The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (also
referred to as BNT162b2) is administered intramuscularly as a 2-dose series spaced 21 days apart at a dose of 30 µg each. The vaccine is supplied as a multi-dose vial (5 doses) containing
a frozen suspension (-80°C to -60°C) of BNT162b2 that must be thawed and diluted with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% sodium chloride, allowing for five 0.3 mL doses. The vaccine is preservative free.

3.1. Vaccine Composition, Dosing Regimen
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a white to off-white, sterile, preservative-free, frozen suspension for intramuscular injection. The vaccine contains a nucleoside-modified messenger
RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-
hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium
phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.

(wow thats a lot of crap in that shot, including the chemical used to put people to death)

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is supplied as a frozen [between -80°C to -60°C (-
112°F to -76°F)] multi-dose (5-dose) vial. The vaccine must be thawed and diluted in its original
vial with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP prior to administration. After
dilution, the vial contains 5 doses of 0.3 mL per dose. After dilution, the multiple-dose vials must
be stored between 2°C to 25°C (35°F to 77°F) and used within 6 hours from the time of dilution.

Reactogenicity data from a total of 100
adolescents 12 through 15 years of age enrolled in C4591001 Phase 2/3 were provided in the
EUA submission. However, the Sponsor did not request inclusion of this age group in the EUA
because the available data, including number of participants and follow-up duration, were
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization Review Memorandum insufficient to support favorable a benefit-risk determination at this time. Therefore, the reactogenicity data for participants 12 through 15 years of age are not presented in this

Suspected COVID-19 Cases
As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCRconfirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for seriousness. Two serious cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 were reported, both in the vaccine group, and narratives were reviewed. In one case, a 36-year-old male with no
medical comorbidities experienced fever, malaise, nausea, headache and myalgias beginning on the day of Dose 2 and was hospitalized 3 days later for further evaluation of apparent infiltrates on chest radiograph and treatment of dehydration. A nasopharyngeal PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on the day of admission, and a chest CT was reported as normal.
The participant was discharged from the hospital 2 days after admission. With chest imaging findings that are difficult to reconcile, it is possible that this event represented reactogenicity
following the second vaccination, a COVID-19 case with false negative test that occurred less than 7 days after completion of the vaccination series, or an unrelated infectious process.

In the other case, a 66-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, myalgias, and shortness of breath beginning 28 days post-Dose 2 and was hospitalized one day later with
abnormal chest CT showing a small left-sided consolidation. He was discharged from the hospital 2 days later, and multiple nasopharyngeal PCR tests collected over a 10-day period
beginning 2 days after symptom onset were negative. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that this event represents a COVID-19 case with multiple false negative tests that occurred more
than 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen, and more likely that it represents an unrelated infectious process
Among 3,410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall studypopulation, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected
COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine
group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19
cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms
that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that
protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked
clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.

Vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 disease
COVID-19 disease may have long-term effects on certain organs, and at present it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact on specific long-term sequelae of
COVID-19 disease in individuals who are infected despite vaccination. Demonstrated high efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 should translate to overall prevention of COVID-19-
related sequelae in vaccinated populations, though it is possible that asymptomatic infections
may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections and may be associated with
sequelae that are either late-onset or undetected at the time of infection (e.g., myocarditis).
Additional evaluations will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing long-term
effects of COVID-19, including data from clinical trials and from the vaccine’s use post authorization.

A numerically greater number of appendicitis cases occurred in the vaccine group but occurred
no more frequently than expected in the given age groups and do not raise a clear concern at
this time for a causal relationship to study vaccination. Although the safety database revealed
an imbalance of cases of Bell’s palsy (4 in the vaccine group and none in the placebo group),
causal relationship is less certain because the number of cases was small and not more
frequent than expected in the general population. Further signal detection efforts for these
adverse events will be informative with more widespread use of the vaccine.

Some pointed out the importance of long-term safety data for the PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine as it is made using a technology not used in previously licensed vaccines.

The lack of data on how the vaccine impacts asymptomatic infection and viral shedding was
also pointed out and that this should be addressed prior to study unblinding. Other committee
members were concerned about limited data available in certain subpopulations such as HIVinfected individuals, individuals with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and certain demographic

Reports of lymphadenopathy were imbalanced with notably more cases in the vaccine group
(64) vs. the placebo group (6), which is plausibly related to vaccination. Bell’s palsy was
reported by four vaccine participants and none in the placebo group.









Yes, here is another of those, saw a post and wanted to see something and found out another, posts from me.

Was looking thru the US Constitution again, and found something kinda funny. I will post the relevant articles below, but for now here is a weird thing.

Did you know that the Constitution says that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of whole persons(have to check on the meaning of that later) and that if any man is found to be able to not vote due to crimes and such, the apportionment will be decreased by that number of men not able to vote.

Note it says any man not woman, even the 19th only says that women can vote not that they are counted for representation. I have checked everything that I could and found nothing that gives any change in status for counting representation. So you can have 25k men incarcerated and that would change the number of representatives, but having 1 million women in jail would change nothing.

Here is the 14th amendment (replacing text from earlier in the Constitution)

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

and now the 19th

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.



Good Day;

There have been questions about putting a citizenship question on the census. After a lot of reading in the constitution, as a constitutional novice, I have come up with a better question that is in accord with the constitution. This question is a simple one that abridges no rights to any group. The question would be, are you allowed to vote in a federal election. This question is actually required by the constitution.  You see the way the constitution says it, you count everyone, and then take out those that can not vote in a federal election. simple huh?

With that being said, I have a question. Did the 19th and 26th  amendments change the 14th amendment? I ask this as with the census fast approaching it is needed to find out the actual enumeration in respect to representation.  I will post the section of which I speak  to help.

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The section in bold is the section in question. As you can see it specifies male citizens of the age of 21.  With the 19th saying women have all the rights  as men, do they not then bear all the responsibilities?  Thus if you loose your right to vote in a federal election, you would then loose the right to have the representation in such an election? Similarly those that are 18 having received the right to vote for their choice of representatives would also loose that right?

My research thus far has alluded no answers to this important question. any help would be appreciated.

Thank you



I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –



Have environmentalists gone too far? Back years ago they were instrumental in helping us save the trees. That was a good thing that provided for oxygen. Then it was coal. Okay that help clean up the atmosphere with cleaner burning coal. Cleaning up the water, okay yes we all need clean water to drink and to live with.

But now we have them calling for all these renewable energy sources. The problem is what happens later say 10 years, 15 years from now when all the solar panels, batteries (electric cars) and stuff reaches the end of its useful life. What do we do with all that hazardous material? Do we send it to a landfill? How do we recycle it? Have the environmentalist thought that far ahead or or are they just looking at today?

These are some very serious questions I am bringing up. As in less than a generation we will have to deal with all this problem. We see one of the problems already from what the green people wanted us to do and not don’t, nuclear energy. We now have megatons of nuclear garbage that will not be safe for 100 generations. What are we to do about that? While supposedly green energy may seem good, what do we do with what is left over after the lifespan of the product? Can anyone in the green energy industry answer this?

I have heard that solar panels have a lifespan of between 10 and 20 years. Battery typical life is 5 to 10 years. So what happens next? We also know that the manufacturer of these solar panels and batteries creates hazardous waste. So what is the answer?

Your comments?