Proof Positive

The dems say we are ruining the planet by the emissions of CO2, all while spewing out exhaust with their big cars, big houses, private jets and big yachts.

They claim the oceans are rising while they buy beach front homes, frequently in Florida. They do this while they claim that all of Florida will be under water inside a decade or two. It might almost be wishful thinking. It would tilt the Electoral College in their favor.

The question is, just what does this prove? Just think about it a while. You just might figure it out. I can’t, but I’ve narrowed it down.

If what they claim is true, they cannot be too bright buying land that will soon be well submerged. If they are so afraid of carbon dioxide, they’d not spend so much of their ill gotten gains to generate it.

To me, it looks as if it’s proof positive that they don’t believe what they preach.

On the other hand, it might just be outright stupidity. You take your pick. Sometimes I think the one way; sometimes the other. Sometimes, I think it’s a little of both. Sometimes I think it’s just to keep folks like me guessing. I mean, really. What sane person would buy land that they know will soon be useless?

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.

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.

The Good Guys Always Win!

I was brought up in the era of Roy Rodgers, Gene Autry and The Cisco Kid. The good guy always won; the bad guys were caught and thrown into jail always. Naturally, the guy wearing a white hat eventually won the fight, though the bad guys never fought fair.

You can imagine my disappointment when my idealism faded over the years. I started seeing bad guys pick on good guys and they even started winning the fights. Indeed, fairness did not always prevail. Repeatedly, I saw big bully types win.

Many a time, I saw and heard of evil winning the day. Can you believe it, I have even heard of babies, 2 or 3 getting killed by stray bullets or sometimes by their own parents. Then there are the respected women who pay doctors to have their unborn children torn into pieces for convenience or little more.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were someone, somebody who is really good who could set it all straight? Wouldn’t it be nice if there was someone around who can and will take vengeance against those who wear black hats and force their will on those of us not as strong.

It would be oh so horrible if the ruler of the universe wore a black hat, figuratively. We certainly don’t need a villain in charge of everything.

Isn’t it a good thing that God is perfectly good, perfectly merciful and loves us all enough to send His Son to die for us.

What a shame it is that we ignore him.

However, in the end, there will be a judgment. The villains and the bullies, the Hitlers, the Stalins and the Maos will stand and be given one last chance to defend their actions. Most of us know what will happen to them then.

THEN, THE GOOD GUYS WILL WIN AND THE BAD GUYS WILL LOSE. The bad guys will wish that they were going to jail. The conditions in American prisons are far more bearable.

I would like to say that, forewarned, the bad guys will change their ways. However, experience has taught me otherwise.

As an aside, I wonder what Joe’s defense will be. I wonder what Obama will have to say about hope and change. I wonder if Adam Schiff will still be saying he has proof of collusion.

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.

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.

The Biggest Problem With the Marines

After 9 years in the Marines, it saddens me as I watch what happens to it. I’m sure that I’m not alone though I have yet to check around.

To be sure, it has gotten soft. If I went a day without getting hit during boot camp, it was a real oddity. OK. I admit it. It caused a little pain. In the end, I knew my drill instructor had my interest in mind. The pain only increased my chances of my survival, which also increased the chances for the marines around me. Being in the air wing, I never saw any real combat, but i was plenty close enough for me. I also met many who did see the combar. I drew the conclusion that, no matter the pain, better to learn in training.

Certainly, the advent of politically correct experiments haven’t helped. Well, they helped the politicians. When staying alive is the object, politics matter less than nothing. And one of the best ways to stay alive is by killing the enemy, as horrible as that may sound. When you keep him on the run, his abilities to kill you are greatly reduced.

Then, I ask, do we really need women in foxholes? Does it really improve our abilities to rain terror on the enemy? I know for sure 2 things about that. I would never willingly share a foxhole with a woman and no woman would ever want to share a foxhole with me.

I could certainly carry on just about forever on the subject, but the question is the biggest problem with the Marines. That’s simple. That’s obvious. The biggest problem with the entire Department of Defense is the commander in chief. No one person has done more damage to our military than Joe has.

My only question, is it stupidity on intentional. Likely, it is both. The problems with the likes of Joe giving the orders is that learning war tactics by experience is horribly expensive and there are no backspace keys. Mistakes are very permanent.

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.

The Biggest Fear of Our Forefathers

As they were froming the federal government, one fear drove them more than anything else. It is the reason for having 3 separate parts:legislative, executive and judicial. Each has its own powers and limits. That way, the hope was that no one person or group of people would exceed their authority.

In addition, they added 10 amendments. If you study them carefully, you’ll see that, while each has its purpose, collectively they have 1 purpose, to protect the individuals from the government.

Now, why did they feel the need for protection from our government. It’s because they were afraid of the tyranny of the majority.

Without the bill of rights, the majority could take control of the government. Then, ironically it could be ruled by a small minority. If you doubt the fear to be valid, look at what we have now, a one party rule.

The hope of the forefathers was that a free press would keep them in check. On the contrary, they are doing all they can to assist the overthrow of our constitution.

Now the Bill of Rights is on the verge of being trodden under the feet of socialists. They hate freedom of religion and they are destroying our rights to have our say. They want to remove our right to defend ourselves. I could go on but I’m sure you get the picture.

Still, I must add one more remark i heard lately. It would seem that the dems interpret the 10th amendment as reserving all powers not specified in the Constitution to the democrat party.

Maybe it’s a joke, but I am sure they would accept said power without a second thought.

To be sure, we just might be realizing the tyranny of the majority within the decade. It was the primary fear of the framers of our Constitution and today, the threat stands before us and it isn’t even well hidden. What a legacy to leave for our children, especially considering the freedom we inherited.

THE PROBLEM WITH BEGGING!

There is an old adage. (I know adage means old saying and saying old adage is being redundant. However, nowadays, many are unaware of that and expect the word pairing.)

At any rate, as I was saying, it is an old saying that beggars can’t be choosy. Certainly that’s so, so true today as well as when the adage was first uttered…or written, whichever.

So, the day Joe became the occupier of the Oval Office, he set this nation on a path to begging. So, it would appear his wish has come true.

About 18 months ago, the US was an exporter of energy. Now, Joe is going around, hat in hand, begging for oil. As a beggar, he will need to accept their conditions or we’ll need to cut down our forrests for fire wood to stay warm.

This would cut back on fossil fuel usage; but it sure would increase the pollution. Also, with no more trees, the birds would have to build their nests on the ground, on power lines or tops of buildings.

Maybe the better idea is as it was when Joe took office…DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

He might not like fossil fuel but it would be our fossil fuel and it would be so much better than chopping down all those wonderful trees. Still, chopping down the trees is still better than freezing to death. Besides, what do we use in the place of fire wood when the trees are gone, fossil fuel?

There are a few asides. I can’t get my car to burn wood. 2nd, with the price of oil back down at 40 dollars a barrel, it would sure slow inflation. Finally, possibly most importantly, Putin couldn’t afford to wage wars at the lower price. Neither would he be able to make his threats.