Walkathon to Help Victims of Human Trafficking

Sounds good. Appears to be a wonderful endeavor.

However, it’s empty. It provides little help.

You think I’m heartless? Think again. The heartless people are those who, by plan, have encouraged the masses to leave their own country to come to America. It has established excellent opportunities for those who traffic in humans, the children, the young as well as adults.

By the way, the open border has also greatly increased the power of the criminals, drug smuggling (which has caused drug deaths), importing of disease (TB, AIDS, the China virus, and who knows something not yet named), and annihilated national defense.

You really want to cut down human trafficking, close the border. It will do more good than you’ll ever know. By the way, the cartels would be the ones most hurt by a closed border with a tall fence. Leave the border open and you’ll hurt those you are saying you want to help.

We’re not just talking pain and suffering, but in many cases death.

The Epitome of Stupidity

I just heard a report on CBS that was so unbelievable that I just had to verify it before writing on it. Sure enough, it’s accurate according to NPR (Becky Sullivan)

Henceforth, VISA, Mastercard and American Express will (or have) created a code for gun sales. This is in hopes of decreasing gun violence.

Sorry, that will have little or no affect. The reason can be determined by a smart 6th grader (One who does not attend public school). Those who plan to use guns illegally are not likely to use a credit card to buy a gun. Hidden near the end of the article is a stat that pretty much confirms this. About 7% of those using guns during crimes buy them legally. There is no record of the purchase of over 90% of guns used in crime.

If I decide to buy a gun without my M.C., all I need do is go to the ATM and withdraw 6 or 7 hundred dollars and go find someone interested in selling their 9 mm.

I have no such plans nor do I currently have any guns, although if the FOCs continue to run things as they do, I just might go out and buy a few automatic pitching machines with which to defend my home. I’m not sure, but I’d think it would be a good legal way of defense. Any smart burglars burglaring my home would be wise to bring their baseball glove.

As I have said before, the way to stop gun violence, or any kind of of violence is three-fold. Teach respect of human life in the home, in the schools and from the government. Pray and encourage prayer before the violence. It doesn’t help much after. Make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.

One more thing thing that would help is to lock up those who commit crimes, especially the violent kind. Many violent crimes are committed by known criminals, most which don’t use guns.

Why So Easy?

I keep hearing these ads on TV about how easy it is to steal homes. It seems most anyone can do it. My question is why?

All these hundreds of representatives at state and federal level. You’d think a few of them have seen these ads. You’d think one would say, “Aha! I have this really neat idea for a law.”

Maybe, just maybe, they don’t want to stop the legal theft. After all, some of their friends make a bundle off such things. Who knows? Maybe they were even involved in such thievery.

Whatever. It seems an easy problem to solve. Unlike the weather, there are things that can be done about it.

If they can’t think of anything maybe they can start by locking up the culprits they catch…maybe 20 years. Maybe they can invalidate any such actions as well as any subsequent transactions on the property.

I’m sure there are many things that need to be worked out but these representatives are smart and they have a bunch of smart people working for them. I bet they all have college degrees. I suspect most have prestigious law degrees from such as Yale and the like.

Then again, they can treat like like the weather and do nothing but hold long impressive conversations about it.

Then too. I might even be wrong about that. I wonder if any of them ever brought the subject up.

Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.

Did Someone Say Something About Home made Guns?

Actually, I did, years ago.

Now, I’m hearing reports that the former premier of Japan was killed by one. I hate that. Mostly, as a pro-life person, I always hate such horrble things. In this case, it is especially horrid. I would not have been so upset if it had happened to the likes of Putin or that no-account who treats all those in China so badly. Then again, if either of them were to begin experiencing the after life, he most certainly would be replaced with someone worse.

Regardless, that aside, the man proved my point. In a country where gun control is the norm, the culprit either made his weapon or he bought it from someone who knows his gunsmithing. I neither wanted nor welcome the proof, but all must accept it when it becomes obvious.

Now that we are in a society that wants to take guns from lawful citizenry, we must face the fact that the criminals will be carrying homemade guns, perhaps fully automatic. This is especially noteworthy considering that the next mistake the FOCs will make is to remove the guns from the police.

By the way, when no one but criminals have guns, every gun becomes an effective assault weapon. It’s precisely what the libs want: a nation ruled by criminals. It is a world they can fix into a nation like China.

The Inevitable Result of the Pipeline

It is one of those old laws so to speak of the pipeline. If what you put in is bad, most likely what you get out the other end will be bad. So let’s take a quick look at the pipeline and what we are putting in and just what is coming out.

We put in children from broken Godless homes. We send them through schools where no one can say anyting about God, or even speak the truth about good and evil without someone losing his job. We teach that mankind has no greater importance than a whale, porpoise or ape, and the kids come out believing all things they are taught.

If a person is no more than an animal, but more intelligent and with apposing thumbs: if all man is doing is destroying plants, animals and the climate, then why not believe he has improved the world by destroying some of the horrible human inhabitants?

Don’t all animals go around killing others, even of their own type? Why shouldn’t men kill other men? We are only soulless animals as all the others.

Indeed, as a society, we kill even the youngest and most innocent. Joe speaks as if it is our duty kill babies before they have a chance to breathe the air we breath, to be sure, before they are protected by law.

If there are any statistics, I suspect they would prove at least 8 out of 10 killers come from broken homes where the Bible was never read.

And so it would seem that I’m blaming broken homes for all the shootings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. God tells us we each are responsible for our own actions.

After all, Eve blamed the snake. Adam blamed Eve and even implied God was guilty because He made Eve for him.

Mankind always looks for excuses, a way out. Yet, when we do we always make things worse. So, Joe tries to blame the weapon instead of the shooter. That makes about as much sense as Cain blaming the rock for his killing Able. You notice even Cain was not that dumb.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it till the day I die. The time to pray is before the disasters. Afterwards is too late. But then, the government won’t let us pray beforehand, only after.

So, the pipeline made up of broken homes and atheist schools keeps turning out kids who know not the difference between good and evil. To that degree, society is guilty. How can they know right from wrong when no one is permitted to teach them.

Worthless Laws

A number of years ago, we, as a nation made it illegal to make or drink alcoholic beverages. That did not work out so well. The fact of the matter is, it caused far more problems than it fixed. Moreover, the only ones that stopped drinking were those who obeyed the law. The rest, those who had little or no regard for the law kept drinking.

To make matters worse, the criminal element started making money from the law. Some made the alcohol. Some smuggled it, in some cases in rowboats. Guess what, those guys with the little boats ended up making a fortune. It seemed they could still make the stuff in Canada, but only for export. In other words, the Canadians were making a bundle of money off the law, and I am sure it was not by accident.

It was a well-meaning law. If they had managed to dry up the country, it likely would have done a lot of good. However, good or bad, the law was worthless.

And now Joe wants to pass another useless law. He wants to outlaw ghost guns. Certainly, it is well-meaning, just as prohibition. However, it is just as useless; maybe less. Nowadays, we have the internet. Anyone who knows how to surf the web and has a few machinic skills can quickly start making guns in his basement, just as those who made gin in bathtubs.

Moreover, there is nothing stopping people from making them in Canada, Mexico or South America and smuggling them, maybe in rowboats or sailboats. I don’t think I am suggesting anything new. Indeed, there are likely those waiting for the opportunity. Then they can make their money off the ghost gun law just as effectively as the mobs made their money off the booze.

I do have two real suggestions that just might work better than the useless laws. First, and most important, enforce the laws they currently have. May I remind one and all, this means those who murder with or without guns. You might note, some have used hammers or baseball bats.

Secondly, don’t make it so hard to buy and use guns in self-defense.

It is not a perfect solution. Nothing ever is. However, making guns illegal is going to only ensure that us regular citizens will have no defense when those who do have guns show up in our Living rooms uninvited.

Incidentally, do we really want to spend all our tax dollars trying to enforce a worthless law?

A Little Reminder Of Years Gone By

At my most recent visit to McDonald’s I had just turned in my order. As I approached my table, a woman came storming in and reminded me of language I had tolerate while going through M.C.R.D. (Marine boot camp)

She did manage to meet her goal. Within a minute or two she walked back out satisfied that she now had the food she wanted and also, I’m sure, upset the poor guy behind the counter. To be sure, such language was effective but it also spoke volumes about her. I would suspect there were a few others who took note too.

However, what she may not have known was that it also spoke volumes about her and her parents. Likely, she didn’t care, which also said something about the woman. For one thing, I instantly had no respect for the woman. Why should anyone have any respect for a woman who has no respect for herself.

More than that, she clearly had no anger management skills. She never made any attempt at resolving the problem with simple reason. I don’t know about others, but I have found that when I complain with a smile, it generally is at least as effective and I don’t upset anyone. If I do continue to have problems, I ask to speak to the manager. I don’t always get a resolution, but, believe me, they do remember me. A proper word spoken with reason can be far more effective than a bunch of profanity spoken loud enough that everyone in the place can hear it.

Most important, when I leave, I am generally respected. Again, why should they respect me if I don’t respect myself.

I have written about respect before, but the type we have for each other. However, it would seem we also have problems with self-respect. People who respect themselves don’t get involved in the “crash and runs.” People who do such things, even according to the Bible bring shame on themselves and their parents. In a more broad sense, they bring shame on all their kinfolk. After a while, it is only natural to think badly anyone close to him.

And again, the person does not care one iota. Why should they. No one taught them any better. Many never had fathers. In some cases, it might be better if they didn’t have fathers. Those who raised them, those who were their example might be worse than they are. Nonetheless, when I see them going through a Walgreens with their arms full of loot, it speaks volumes to me about them, and those who brought them up.

Respect, all respect begins at home. If kids are not taught respect for others and themselves at home, then no one will respect them. It really isn’t a difficult thing to figure out, but it would seem the dems are having a difficult time of it.

Incidentally, respect of the law and those who enforce it is pretty important too. It just might keep a person out of prison. It just might keep a person from being killed. It’s a good thing to remember, even when you get pulled over for have something dangling from the rear-view mirror.

As usual, I have a little side note. If you speak respectfully to those behind the counter, it just might be a little less embarrassing when you find out you were wrong.