TheOverlooked Commandment

If you ask the thief why he stole the 35 dollars from the woman, most times, if he’s honest, he will say, “I wanted it.” Naturally, many murders are committed why? For robbery. If you ask the politician why he accepted the bribe, he’ll admit he wanted that 100 grand, or that really nice car, or that really big boat. If we were able to ask Hitler why he took Austria and Poland; if he replied honestly, he’d say he wanted them and the power. He coveted the material and the power.

I don’t offhand remember the name of the Babylonian king, but the Bible makes it clear his motivation for capturing Judah was to take gold. History is full of folks who wanted things, power and fame; so they took them.

I think we can safely say that many horrible, major and minor world events began with lust. In the Tenth Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.”

Most of us pay do not pay proper attention to the Commandment. Well, it is sort of difficult to measure or punish by humans. I mean, just how many folks are thrown in the county jail because he wanted someone’s really beautiful black stallion. On the other hand, in the old west, if a person took a man’s mount from him, he could end up at the end of a rope.

If somehow, I could wave the proverbial magic stick and rid the minds of all mankind of all covetousness, the world would suddenly become a pretty nice place.

The problem is that we cannot rid the world of coveting. So we must also put up the results: robbery, murder, adultery and wars.

Even so, teaching our youth would likely be a good idea. This by parents, from the pulpits and in the schools. At least I can’t see how it would hurt.

Please permit me this short afterthought. Maybe someone should have told Joe, his family and his friends the virtues of the obedience of The Tenth Commandment.

No Comparison

In 2921, more than 70,000 people died from fentenyl.

In 2022, 1192 were killed by police. This includes those that were classified as justified.

The whole nation is about to come apart at the seems because of the death of one man, who was under the influence and resisting arrest. While I feel horrible at the loss of any life, there is just no comparison. Where is the outrage of the thousands of lives lost to fentenyl?

Moreover, the death at the man in Memphis was the indirect result of drug abuse. Had he not been under the influence, it is highly likely he would not have been stopped.

Maybe, just maybe, someone should show a little anger at the characters that sold the victim the drug. (I’m not sure, but I believe one of the earlier reports said he was on speed.)

Finally, may I say something about the mainstream media. They spent hours on the death of one man while hardly mentioning what led up to the horribly incident. The reason that hundreds of thousands have died is because of illegal drug distribution, which we can trace back to China and the cartels in Mexico.

Joe is really upset over one man in Memphis. Not one word by anyone about the murderers shipping poison over the border.

Note that I call the murderers. Most of their victims fail to survive and return for a second purchase. If the purpose of the cartels was to make money, they’d not choose to sell the poison they are killing more with their chemical warfare than we lost in Vietnam.

Jesus Alone Saves

There is a church on a corner, which has a sign that clearly says, “Jesus alone saves.” I’m told that, from time to time, the preacher of the church gets a phone call complaining about the sign. I suspect maybe one or two of the complaints were a little threatening.

I really don’t get a kick out of the complaints but it does illustrate a point. There is no person on earth who gets more angry at such a sign as them that need it. Such a sign causes no harm, no damage. Yet, many atheist fear the signs as if they will hunt them down and instantly convert them, regardless.

The thought is, of course, ludicrous. God does not force salvation on anyone. He does provide us with the information, the opportunity and a little encouragement from time to time but he never forces anyone to accept salivation.

The question comes to mind, just why is the devout atheist afraid of 3 words to the point that it drives them to such hate? Just why is it that it drives a man to complain and even threaten.

Actually, it goes further than that. It can cause strife between brothers or sisters. Should a son say a word to his father, the father might banish the son from his presence. It’s not something that might happen. It occurs, possibly, daily.

We who try to help our fellow humans are in danger of, figuratively losing that part of us that thinks simply for trying keep a man from something worse than physical death.

You doubt me? Here’s one for you. Sometime when you’re at an office Christmas party, try mentioning something about the birth of Christ and why He died for us. Must I explain, it is His birth we are celebrating. On the other hand, could it be the birth is an excuse to drink and get drunk?

For my aside today, maybe I can take this opportunity to remind one and all of the 1st amendment. That sign is on church property and the church has every right to put it there, at least for now. Just as we can change TV channels, no one is required to read the sign, though it would likely be a better world if people would read it and head it. As I mentioned, the atheists are the ones who need that little piece of truth the most.

Ridding the World of AIDS

Since the early seventies, millions of dollars have been spent on the effort to rid the world of AIDS. I find this very odd. They did nothing to isolate people who infected with AIDS. I have heard arguments, infinitum against said isolation. Yet, had the original people with aids had been isolated, it would have drastically reduced the spread of the virus. The cost would have been minimal compared to the billions spent.

It would have also been advantageous to those infected. It is the nature of disease to reduce immunity. Is it not part of the name. Hence the person with AIDS is more likely to die from secondary infections when exposed to them. An isolated person might have lived years longer than someone exposed to such things as TB, flu, hepatitis and such.

As an aside, ignoring (CDC, the same folks that gave us the China virus.) the spread of the disease has caused some spreading of those secondary infections. TB was virtually eradicated until AIDS. There just might be a reason to the spread of hepatitis among homosexuals.

The so-called experts said that the disease could not be transmitted through the blood. Then they found out that they were wrong only after thousands of victims were infected. This was totally the fault of the experts.

Even though it was general knowledge that the disease was primarily transmitted from homosexual to homosexual, no attempt was made to keep homosexuals from contributing to blood national blood supply, especially in San Francisco. Actually, just the opposite. Blood banks purposely sought out homosexuals. As a result, the disease spread from heterosexuals, overnight, into the general population.

It would seem the homosexuals wanted the disease to spread so that more money would be put into the research. Researchers frantically looked for something, anything. Even so, the disease spread, especially in Africa. It lended credence to the conspiracy theory that the CIA was trying to kill all black people.

A few logical steps would have drastically reduced the death from dreaded disease. It was as those in power wanted the disease to spread. To be sure, there have been billions of dollars that have gone into the drug research in hopes of finding a cure a cure or vaccine. Bottom line, they have slowed the spread, elongated how long people with the disease and they have managed to make a protected class out of homosexuals…all at the cost of billions of dollars and millions of lives.

With all this, the disease could be virtually eradicated in one decade with two simple changes in society. First and foremost, stop sharing needles. Better, stop abusing drugs. Second, stop sex out of marriage.

I know. it sounds like a crazy idea. It is radical. However, it cannot be denied. It will work. After two decades, most of those who are infected will decrease to a very small number. After three decades, the numbers would be reduced to a handful.

The problem is, of course, that would mean enforcing some archaic laws, some that most don’t like.

At the least, three things should have been done. First, identify those who have the disease. That way, we would know who to avoid. Second, crack down on illegal drug distribution, hard. Stop treating it as a victimless crime. The victims are dying every day. It would seem they are just being ignored.

Finally, anyone who knows they are HIV positive and intentionally infects others should be tossed in prison. In some cases, some remained free to roam after committing mass murder, though it was legal. Among the worst, rock hudson. (Note I don’t capitalize his name on purpose) He killed dozens of young boys knowing he was transmitting the disease. Turning my stomach, the news media treated him as a hero. Personally, I believe all his work should be destroyed. He is a worshiped mass killer, and he knew it. Some may not like the way I throw around my terms, but I won’t apologize. It just is I hate those who purposely cause mass death, politically correct or not. Murderers out not be idolized.

Another Look at the Vince Foster Suicide

I spent years thinking that Vince Foster didn’t commit suicide. Now I think I might be wrong. I cannot say for sure one way or the other. Two things I do know. Foster was about to drop a bomb (figuratively) on the Clintons. He knew things the Clintons didn’t want others to know.

Secondly, the Clintons were about to lose all the power and wealth they accumulated and Foster was able to start it all unraveling.

Now. The question is, how could the Clintons get Foster to shoot himself? I am sure they could think of a way. I don’t know, but they might have known 4 or 5 ways. I suspect one of those methods worked. Apparently Vince Foster had a reason to kill himself. Just maybe that reason was the result of a threat.

I can’t prove it. It just is that, now the Clintons just might have been saved by 2 suicides now. What’s the name of that guy that hung himself in that fed jail in New York? Do you suppose the Clintons told the guy, “Kill yourself or else?”


I have seen it dozens of times; a man waving people into the Capitol building on Jan 6 and encouraging them to enter. The man’s name has been determined to be Ray Epps. At this point, it seems no one knows a thing about him. He does not seem to be connected to the FBI or any other federal organization.

I would hope one of the first things the Republicans do when they take control of the House is to summon Ray Epps. I personally would like to know:

A. Who signs his paycheck

B. Who told him to encourage people to enter the Capitol

C. How it is he avoided being charged with a crime when people just in the area are languishing in jail without charges right now, nearly a year after the event.

Do you suppose that the dems have paid for the man to disappear onto the French Riviera for the rest of his life. On the other hand, someone might pull the Clinton method and have the man commit suicide. He might be told, “Commit suicide or lose all your relatives and friends.” Such things have been done before and I would not put the dems above such a thing. After all, to them, there is nothing more important than the next election and the power it will give them. It is quite possible that Ray Epps just might know too much for him to continue to live. I wonder if we are going to find him conveniently dead in some park or federal prison. And, of course, it will be declared suicide, absolutely.

Perhaps Nixon’s Greatest Mistake

I guess there are those who call out mistakes made by Richard Nixon. However, I suspect his biggest mistake was after the election in which Kennedy was declared the winner. He chose not to contest the votes in and near Chicago.

Most historians will quickly agree that had he contested the votes, he may very well have won the election. Yet he chose not to contest them because he was afraid of the national division it might cause. What he apparently overlooked was that it sent a signal to the democrats. He set the “no contest” pattern.

He basically implied that Republicans would not contest elections of future elections even when the dems cheat. Hence, every election since, the democrats have cheated, and might I say, very effectively? Since that election, there have been many dead voting. People in nursing homes voted, oddly entirely for dems, even when the voter had not even seen a ballot.

In every election since, the dems come up with new methods of putting their thumbs on the election scale. And by the way, whoa to anyone suggesting that there was any kind of voter fraud.

By the way, does not really matter. Laws were broken and people actually admit to it. The problem is that no one in the position to prosecute wants to. Anyone that wants to prosecute can’t. The dems basically control the Justice Department and many of the courts. Even more, the DC courts are critical and completely controlled by the dems. (Over 90% dems in the District of Columbia. No way to convict a dem. No way to defend a Republican.)

Few of us at the time knew, or could even imagine, the damage that was done by that one magnanimous decision made unselfishly by Richard Nixon. It just shows to go, one cannot play nice when it comes to the dems. They have no interest in doing things right. They have no interest in the good of the country or the Constitution. Their only interest is socialism and the power it will provide them.

As a sidenote, I would point out that socialism and the Constitution are mutually exclusive. They cannot co-exist. Hence, for the dems, to win, they must tear down the Constitution and the American way of life. Hence their efforts are to destroy what Americans have spent over two centuries building.

My aside: Fauci is retiring. Maybe we can arrange to put him in a prison cell for the next thousand years.

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.

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.