The Tenth Amendment

Many know not what it says or what it is for. Frequently, it is ignored. In some cases, methods are invented to get around it. When politicians in DC wanted to make all the states set a 55-mph speed limit, they were well aware that it would not get by the Tenth Amendment. No problem. the used the power of highway funding. Any state that would not drop the limit to 55, would lose the federal highway funding. So much for the spirit of the tenth amendment. It would seem that any time they want to nullify the amendment, they just make the appropriate threats. The feds, specifically the dems get around the tenth to control our schools. That’s a bad idea. The feds should have very limited control over schools.

Today, the Tenth Amendment has become the least effective amendment and it should be one of the most enforced. Today, our federal system is on the brink of collapse because most people just simply don’t know how important the amendment is. More and more, power is being transferred to the feds. it is just exactly what the founding fathers feared and for good reason.

For those who have no problem with the feds (effectively the dems) running everything, consider these two questions. How has it worked so far? How well will it work in the foreseeable future?

Well, let me add one more. Do we really want the feds determining how our children are being brainwashed? Do we really want our kids filled with a heap of false propaganda? (Actually, to some degree, this has already started.)

New Word

Recently I learned a new word. Allow me a correction? It’s not a new word at all. It’s hundreds of years old. I just heard the word recently so it’s new to me. I looked it up to insure I have the meaning right. It seems the word is based on the two Greek words: ploutos meaning wealthy and kratos meaning power or ruling.

When I first heard the word, I was silly enough to wonder if it was somehow tied in with the name of the Disney dog, Pluto but it would appear that I was as far as the east is from the west. All right. Some of us aren’t so bright. At 73, I still like to refer back to my boyhood days when one of my favorite TV programs was Disneyland.

The word, plutocrat might easily be confused with other words with similar meanings such as astocracy (generally associated with nobility) or oligarchy as would seem to be the case in Russia.

The important thing about the subject, it would appear that, in one way or another the rich do affect our government at every level. In the past we had those who built the big monopolies, also referred to as robber barrons.

Of course these are all poor replacements for democracy, that is government by the people. It would appear no nation can be completely dissociated from rule by gold. Even in nations that brag of their wanders of communism, also called socialism.

I’m sure there are experts in our nation who can call out those who rule other countries by and for their weath. As for me I turn my interest to the USA.

However, I would like to point out that there are 4 basic groups of the wealthy in these parts. Some simply wish to do business. Of course, they do have interest in the government but only to permit fair and proper business practice.

There are those that seek power for the sake of gaining wealth and power. The dems are well peppered with this type. If you doubt, consider Pelosi, Biden, and the like who have no wealth other than what they gained in office. I believe these are most accurately described by the new word, plutocrat.

Lest you think I’m more interested in politics than truth, let me say the Republicans also have their share of plutocrats. They are also known as RINOS, Republicans in name only. The current minority leader in the Senate and a couple of the former speakers of the house. The plutocrat can easily be found. One not need search too deep. They have great wealth and they gained almost all from their government position.

Then, there are those who had their wealth before being elected to office and, if they gain wealth in office, it is incidental. Although the Kennedys meet this criteria, i hesitate to put them in this category being as their wealth was obtained by illegal methods. Indeed, they maintained their connection with those still practicing such things. Moreover, John and Ted Kennedy continued to take advantage of their power and wealth after being elected to office. Consider the cover-ups with Marilyn Monroe and Mary Jo Kopechne. (Oh, if only they could take the witness stand.)

Some, perhaps millions would say the same about Trump. It is not the point of this post to defend the former president. However, I will quickly say this. During his presidency, his wealth decreased, the vast majority of those with the least wealth gained the most. And, last but not least, no former ladyfriends ended up dead under suspicious conditions.

Then, there are the ones such as George Soros. There are a few of them. They have billions of dollars to throw around and they seem to want to use it for destruction of our nation and our way of life. For what purpose, I simply have no idea. Perhaps it’s idealism gone astray. My guess is he has the same idea that men have throughout history; world domination. He, and those like him, want to use their fortunes to rule the world. It has been a dream of the Pharoahs, the Babylon kings, and so forth.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a power hungry plutocrat ruling the world. I don’t even want one ruling our country.

I know of no way of limiting the power of plutocrats, robber barons or whatever you want to call them. But perhaps it might start when the news media, dems and RINOS stop helping them.

As an aside, I have written a group of books I call The Floater Group. In them, the floaters are the protagonists and the controllers are the villains. The controllers bear a resemblance, of a sort, to plutocrats. It’s a shame I didn’t know the word plutocrat back when I began writing. Maybe instead of The Controllers Organization, I could have called it The Plutocrat Association.

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.

$10 Dollar Gasoline???

In the 70s an unexpected problem arose. The price of gasoline went to over a dollar. Well yes, it was a problem that caused many problems, especially in a world of approximately 30 cent fuel.

Suddenly, people were playing over 3 times as much, when they could find it. But it caused an odd, unexpected problem for those selling it. I remember it first hand. I was there.

Some dealt with the problem by selling gasoline by the liter. Some simply painted a one in front of that portion indicating the price and the cost of the sale.

Of course, now, very few expect $10 gasoline. However, that would only require a little more than doubling. Back in the 1970s, it more than trippled. One day it was 30 cents. 6 or 7 months later, it was 1.10 and climbing.

That was when we could find stuff. With it going up so fast, I suspect some held onto it as an investment comodity. They could not resist holding onto a few thousand gallons knowing the price will go up 3 or 4 percent in a month. In itself, this would drive the prices up.

Those of us buying the gas, dealt with the problem in three basic ways. We drove less. We pumped our own gas and we stayed away from name brands. Before, I bought only Standard and Chevron gas. After, all I looked at was the price.

Then again, frequently, we settled for accessibility. Many stations were out of gas or claimed to be. Some stations had 2 hour lines. Then they’d sell out on the car 2 cars in front of me.

In the long term, we bought smaller cars with smaller less powerful engines. It meant putting up with rougher rides in cramped environments and much less trunk space.

So now, the price of gas flirts with 4 dollars a gallon, we lack these methods we used last time around. I already buy Mapco gas. I pump my own fuel and my little 100 hp motor has problems with steep grades and I can forget toeing even a small trailer. A boat or travel trailer is out of the question. I’m already considering one of those Flintstone cars powered by foot power.

I suspect most of us would prefer that gas stay down perhaps to the 2 dollar range. For that reason, if nothing else, I’d strongly suggest firing all those dems in Congress, House and Senate. Most of them like the thought of 10 dollar gas. They want us to buy the more expensive, smaller electric cars, which do little or nothing to decrease “green gasses.” Actually, they’d prefer we walk, ride bikes, buses or trains while they ride in chauffeured luxury cars or fly around in private jets.

So, unless you like bicycling &+ buying gas by the liter, you might want to vote Republican. You might want to encourage your friends to vote Republican. You might even want to encourage your advisories to vote Republicans.

Paying 10 dollars a gallon is more than crazy. It’s crazy nuts. Then again, $2.50 a liter might sound better, but it won’t help the budget one iota. Indeed, just as I saw in the 70s, the price of everything will go up to match the increase in the cost of energy.

Rules of the Road

My wife’s grandfather used to patrol the highways of Arkansas mainly looking for truckers who operated outside the rules of the road.

In general, he didn’t spend much time in Ft. Smith, he did occasionally write a citation there. One day, a few months before retiring, he stopped a woman for driving the wrong way on a one way street.

After very politely explaining the dangers of her actions, she pointed at a nearby by sign. It seems they changed the proper direction without notifying him. After a quick courteous apology, he tipped his hat and wished her a good day.

It all started many years ago. They made a road, painted a line down the middle of it, assigned a speed limit and expected us to follow the rules. The rules and the roads have become more complex but we are still expected to follow the rules. Certainly, we are expected to drive the right direction on a one way road.

Sometimes, in spite of all our best efforts, we make mistakes. If we are fortunate we and all others drive away safely, but not always. Sometimes, people are hurt. Sometimes vehicles and properties are damaged. Worst, sometimes people are killed.

It is why we are given warnings and tickets for running red lights. Sometimes, we get tickets. We don’t like it but we can’t imagine the alternative. Without enforced rules of the road, driving wouldn’t be safe for any person unless they are driving a tank.

It is easy to see for driving. However, it is even more so for for ordinances, laws and regulations. However, if they aren’t enforced, it is the same as highways without enforcement. There are many who would simply ignore them.

If we don’t incarnate those who steal, we encourage theft. If we don’t imprison those who hurt and kill, then we will have assaults and murders. The one thing just follows the other. It would be nice to be able to live in a world without prisons but such an effort will most certainly result in a would of fears and nightmares. It is why our founding fathers built prisons.

They figured it out a long time ago. Life is far better with the criminals behind big walls. It may or may not help the criminals but it certainly improves society.

Moreover, like the police car to the speeder, the enforced law decreases the tendency to steal or kill.

It does make a person with a brain wonder wny the FOCs, aka democrats, openly allow, even encourage the breaking of laws. Perhaps, maybe, just possibly, it is by design. If they destroy our society, they believe they can rebuild it the way they want it, which is not the way we want it.

The way we want it is the elected are the servants and we the electors rule. The way they want it is they are the royalty and we are the servants. If you listen to their speakers closely, they will actually say so.

If they have things their way, the rules, all the rules will benefit them. You notice, already, many of the rules that we live under, Congress doesn’t. They are special. They are the royalty.

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.

A Curiosity

There is a question of small significance based on the Bible and prophecy. Just why is it that the US is not mentioned in the Bible. It does seem to many that the Bible has left out half the world. Some might even suggest it is one of the more important parts.

Many have asked the question. Some have suggested answers. Personally, I don’t know. I do consider it something of a curiosity, though I would never let such a thing cause any doubts in the accuracy of God’s word.

As near as I can figure, what happens in terms of prophecy in the western hemisphere, is of little significance. Currently, that seems highly unlikely.

However, it would not take but a few days for that to change.

  1. A natural disaster. California, the Mid-south and many other places in Mexico and South America have serious fault lines. Just lately I found out there are faults under New York too, though not currently active. From time to time, I have been reminded that Yellowstone sets a top a huge volcano capable of destroying most of this country and send ashes worldwide. Such a thing just might help fulfill prophecies. I don’t know. As I say. I just observe.
  2. It might be war or a few terrorists. China, Iran and a few other countries would like American history to end. The Dems, on the other hand, seem to be inviting terrorists over an open border. A few well placed nuclear weapons would destroy our nation. Just look what 3 well placed planes did. Many take our national security for granted. They like the advantages of living here but they are not willing to help pay for it.
  3. Finally, there is the possibility of destruction from within. Those who say the Republicans are destroying democracy are tearing our Constitution asunder. Without the 10 amendments to protect us, the US will crumble.

Maybe none of this will happen. I don’t know. If any of it does, I hope I don’t live to see it. On the other hand, the more I observe, the more I believe it will be the third. With the dems such as they are, the Lord will not need to send natural disasters or even an enemy to destroy the nation he sees going very much astray. We will do a really great job of destroying ourselves.

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.

How Many Libs to Screw in a Light Bulb?

One cannot claim I don’t believe in recycling. This is one of the most recycled jokes ever and a bad one at that. The answer is casual to the most obvious observer. Actually, that’s kind-of an old twist of words too, but I kinda like it. On the other hand, my wife is more than tired of it and reminds frequently.

At any rate, the obvious answer is zero. No self repecting lib would replace a light bulb. They love stumbling around in the dark. Those few who do like light, prefer paying someone else. It is below their dignity.

Speaking of light, the vast majority of libs deny the greatest Light of all. In John 8:12 Jesus proclaims to all, “I am the light of the world.” Instead of accepting the Light, they defiantly prefer stumbling around in the darkness.

Worse, they pretend to be of great vision and every chance they get, lead us into destruction.

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.