Time Travel

Today I watched a show on the History Channel called UNIVERSE. In that show, scientists - supposedly intelligent, educated people - were discussing the probability of time travel.

I guess a good education cannot instill common sense, because here's what I figured out a long time ago.

Let us assume time travel eventually exists. Sooner or later, someone will abuse it, and use it to change history. That is as certain as the fact that, eventually, someone will gain control of, and abuse, nuclear material. It is human nature.

So, let us assume that Joe Blow, in 2145, returns to the past, to 1932, and assassinates Hitler. At the precise instant he does so, he changes the entire future from that point on. The change is instant - it must be, because the previous circumstances no longer exist.

So, in the "new" year of 2145, Joe Blow cannot go back in time to kill Hitler, because Hitler never rose to power, and was never a problem. But if Joe cannot go back and kill Hitler, Hitler would then survive and rise to power.

This would, at best, create an unbreakable time loop. And here is why that is not possible, either. The only events that changed were "local" events - local to a specific period, on one tiny planet in the universe. It simply defies logic and science for such an event to create a loop that the entire universe would be caught up into. There is no logic or scientific data that indicates that time on Earth is separate from time elsewhere, and that time on Earth cannot affect time on Mars, for example. Because a change in our history - and future - could change any future that includes travel to, or colonization of Mars, so time is therefore not separate. Any loop created on Earth would ultimately affect the entire universe.

Now, here is my "proof" that such is not possible: it has not occured. If time travel ever becomes possible, future citizens would already have traveled back in time. They would already have visited. And changes would already have been made, creating a loop.

Of course, I could be wrong - maybe such a loop has already been created. That would, after all, account for all those instances of deja-vu.

Separation of Church & State?

Before we get ahead of ourselves, I would like to make it clear that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is to be a "separation of church and state." Nowhere. That assertion was nothing more than a misinterpretation by one Thomas Jefferson who, by the way, had no part in writing or approving the Constitution.

The Constitution simply states that "Congress shall make no law" that would infringe on our right to practice our religions. Period.

In other words, the Constitution precludes the state from interfering in religion, and prevents the state from establishing a state church - a religion that all citizens must adhere to. But nowhere does it even suggest that government must be separate from religion, or vice versa.

In other words, the government can fund churches, but only if the offer funding to ALL churches equally. The government may not, however, pass laws that RESTRICT religion, or restrict the practice of the religion by its parishoners.

Communities and states that prohibit practicing religion in certain places are violating the Constitution - the are "passing laws" that interfere with religion.

No, there is not supposed to be a wall between church and state, and building one only serves to hurt us all. If we truly want what is right, and what the founding fathers intended, it is as simple as allowing everyone to practice their religion as they see fit - even if it is on government property, because that is the right that we are guaranteed by the Constitution. And the government - city, state or federal - shall "make no law" in respect to religion.

But liberal courts feel that they have the right to usurp the Constitution. They have often ruled, in opposition to the Constitution, that government may, indeed, restrict religious practice, and to make laws concerning religion and the free practice thereof.

Such judges should be stripped of their robes and tossed out into the streets. If they cannot understand the plain English in the Constitution, they have no business practicing law.

"Mis-spoke"?

Hillary Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in March 1996. Mrs. Clinton often refers to the goodwill trip as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday, she said, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Now, please forgive me if I am not as "eloquent" as Mrs. Clinton, but where I come from, when you say something that is blatantly false, it is not referred to as "mis-speaking". It is called "lying".

It comes as no surprise to me that Mrs. Clinton has lied about this, since it is painfully obvious to most people who have their eyes open that both Clintons have always been patholigical liars.

Mrs. Clinton has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience. Neither does Mr. Obama. The primary difference between them is that Obama is not trying to BS the public into believing he has such experience.

Reclaiming Your Health

There has been a lot of discussion lately on health care. But what no one seems to be talking about is that what they really mean is "sick care". It's not about staying healthy. It's all about being sick.

Health Care in America is expensive only because so many Americans get sick so often. This is not natural. In nature, good health is the norm, simply because it is necessary for survival of the species. So, why are so many Americans forced to spend so much of their treasure on fighting ill health?

IntelliBiz, publisher of "The Simple Man's Guide" series of how-to books has the answer to that, as well as a solution to most of our ills. Their latest work, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" is the result of 7 years of intensive research and practical application. In it you will discover how and why we got into such a sorry state, and exactly what we can do, individually, to regain and maintain optimal health for ourselves and our families.

For example, did you know that our air has 40% less oxygen than it did just 100 years ago? Or that our soil, necessary for producing our food supply, is 80% depleted of nutrients and trace minerals, necessary for good health?

These and many other important facts are thoroughly researched, and solutions are provided that you, yourself, can implement. The volume also covers all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, fats, carbs and proteins, and shows you why you need each them, and how to make sure you get them in the right quantity, and in the right combinations.

The Guide then explores a natural, healthy, filling diet of good, wholesome foods including meats, fruits, nuts, and veggies (vegans can eliminate the meats), and includes a sample menu for maintaining optimal weight and health.

And finally, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" includes an alphabetical directory of illnesses and the natural treatments for them.

All in all, this is the best, most informative book we have ever reviewed on the subject of health. At just $19.95, it is the cheapest "Health Care Plan" around.

"The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" can be ordered online here.

You won't be disappointed.

Gun Control At The Supreme Court

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many naive people who actually believe that banning guns will somehow result in lowering the rate of violent crime.

A couple of things I would like to point out to those folks:

1) People kill people. They kill people with or without guns. They strangle, use knives, pipes, bombs, arrows, vehicles, poisons - you name it, it has been used to kill.

2) People have been killing people since we first dropped out of the trees. That's about 40,000 years before guns. Guns simply make killing more efficient.

But the most important point lies in simple common sense. Imagine you are a violent criminal. You plan to rob liquor stores for a living, so you can get your drug money. To the east is a town where the residents are encouraged to own - and learn how to use - guns. A lot of armed citizens in that town. To the west is another town, like Washington DC, where citizens are prohibited from owning guns. Unarmed citizens (otherwise known as "prey").

Now I ask you - which town are you most apt to head for?

My next question is also founded in common sense: if you are a violent criminal, the kind who has no compunction about killing, would you be afraid to break the law by owning a banned gun?

There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "If you ban guns, only the criminals will be armed". And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed.

Our Supreme Court justices are often wrong, and in some cases downright ignorant. But I really do not believe they have so little intelligence that they would uphold the DC ban on guns.

Solution to Health Care

It seems every politician is getting on the "health care" bandwagon these days, and, frankly, I find it disturbing that none of them even know what the issue is - so how can they solve the problem?

We do not have a "health care" crisis - we have a "sick care" crisis. The problem is not the cost of getting well, or maintaining our health. The problem is that Americans are being made sick by aggressive businesses who are getting rich at the expense of our health.

Let's understand a couple of very important facts:

1) The natural state of health is good health. In most cases, and barring genetic disease, we only become ill when we become weakened by our own foibles and actions (or inactions).

2) The vast majority of the food that is made available to consumers is not food at all. It has little in the way of nutrients, and generally is loaded with chemicals, antibiotics, preservatives, growth hormones, and even petroleum products - all of which are toxic.

3) The water in most communities is polluted with flouride or chlorine - both are poisons.

4) Drug companies, doctors and hospitals do not want people to be cured of anything - they would all go bankrupt if the population were to regain their natural state of health. Instead, they only want to keep us from dying, and to help us to "maintain" life. As long as they can do that - keep us alive, and keep us coming back - only then do they profit. If they cure us, they can no longer dip into our pockets.

So, if we keep from getting sick in the first place, then health care would not be a problem, and would not be expensive at all. Therefore, the issue is not "how to pay for health care" so much as it is "how to eliminate the need for health care".

Anyone with a desire to solve the health care crisis in America need look no further than to improving food and water supplies, and to necessitate at least a minimal amount of exercise on a daily basis.

Our foods and our water should be natural and organic, free of pesticides, chemicals, hormones, antibiotics and petroleum products. Certainly, this would make food more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the health care that becomes necessary because of all the poisons in our diet.

And we need to go back to the days when physical education was a requirement in school. And every business should set aside at least two 10 minute breaks for employees to get aerobic exercise of some sort - even if it is just walking, stair-climbing or jogging in place. Exercise should be encouraged.

And we need to re-learn how to eat. Man was designed as a forager - walking all day, seeking small amounts of food. Call it "grazing", if you will - there was no ready supply of "instant food" from the local supermarket. The fact is, the body can only use just so much fuel at any given time, so the body is most efficient when we fuel it as we use it. Isn't it obvious that if your body can only use 100 calories per hour, that if you eat a 1000 calorie meal, much of that will get stored as fat? What the body cannot use, it stores or excretes. For this reason, nature indicates that we can better achieve optimal health if we 1) at natural foods, and 2) spread the eating out throughout the day, in 4-6 small meals and snacks.

If any politician wants to solve the health care crisis, let him or her confront the real issue - making it easier to stay healthy in the first place!

The Democrat Double Standard

We all know - though the mainstream media never admits it - that the Democrats adhere to a very strict set of double standards when it comes to ethics. Whenever a Republican makes an error in judgement, he or she is to be villified, removed from office, indicted and imprisoned, whether the scandal is one of sex, money or power. But when a Democrat runs afoul of the same thing, he or she is to be honored as a true American who just happens to be human - no big deal. No villification, no removal from office, no indictments and no prison.

A Republican alledgedly touches another man's knee, and he is arrested, goes to court, and is thrown out of office. But a Democrat has sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and he becomes a hero. When a Republican gives praise to a past member of the KKK at his birthday party, that Republican is tossed from office. But when a Democrat is actually a past member of the KKK, he gets re-elected for life.

And so it will be with great interest that I watch what will happen to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He got himself elected by arresting and prosecuting those involved in prostitution, while he, himself, solicited prostitutes. And now that he has been fingered, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats handle this. Bear in mind, this is not a simple case of getting it on with a hooker. It is important to note that Spitzer made his reputation - and even got elected - partly on his harsh stance against prostitution. He has already set the standard by which he, himself, should be judged. He sent people to prison for taking part in prostitution. Now he is guilty of the very same thing.

His cases as state attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and into tourism involving prostitutes.In 2004, he was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.

Again, it is with interest that I will watch this play out. I'm betting that most Democrats will simply try to brush it off as a minor indiscretion that is not worthy of punishment. Any takers?

Is "Green" Really Green?

"Green" this; "green" that. It's all you hear in some circles. And frankly, most of those who are talking do not have a clue - either that, or they are just being dishonest.

Most "green" solutions are not green at all.

Take electric cars. One of the first things we learn in middle school science class is that converting energy always - ALWAYS - results in a net loss. To make electricity, we need to expend even more energy than we get in return. Now, I may not be a genius, but to me, a loss is a loss, and not a gain. If we have to burn more fossil fuels to make electricity, then the "green" cars are actually polluting the air even more than those that run on petrol.

Ethanol: Same thing. Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And only then do we incur the huge energy expenditures in processing it. Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.

Then these new light bulbs: they don't tell us that fluorescent lights require mercury - a very toxic substance. And when asked about this, they say, "It's minimal." But not so minimal that the government requires they be disposed of as hazardous waste, and not simply tossed out. 

OK, so let's assume there is a "minimal" amount of toxic mercury in a fluorescent bulb. My next question is, "How minimal is it?" when, by mandate, hundreds of millions of these fluorescents will soon be in use. Multiply even a "minimal" amount by hundreds of millions and I somehow do not think it is minimal anymore. So, upon disposing of them, how "minimal" will be the environmental impact of all that mercury. And that is only the first set of questions. What about these facts: 

1) Each CFL bulb uses about 10 times as much glass as an incandescent bulb, and making glass requires substantial fuel use. Multiply all that extra glass - and the cost to produce it, and the pollution created to produce it - by hundreds of millions of bulbs. Do you REALLY believe the environmental impact is still minimal? 

2) If these hundreds of millions of bulbs will have to be disposed of as toxic waste, what is the cost of such disposal? Very few communities have accommodations for disposing of hazardous waste. So, you must either travel a considerable distance each time you blow a bulb (and use a lot of gas and oil) to dispose of them, or pay someone $15 plus shipping to dispose of them for you. 

All in all, perhaps it is time for someone who is not pushing a liberal agenda to figure out EXACTLY what is the environmental impact of hundreds of millions of these bulbs, compared to incandescent bulbs - adding up the additional production costs, additional disposal costs, and the huge amount of mercury that must be dealt with - and the cost incurred in doing so. And all for a bulb that produces a very inferior kind of lighting.

I think it is time that we stop looking at the surface of something, and begin looking deeper into things. We need to start extrapolating into the future, by thinking, "If I do this now, what will be the probable effects later on. How will it affect other things?" (Bear in mind that ethanol has caused huge price increases in almost everything we eat and drink because it creates a shortage of corn, used to feed animals, from which we get meat, dairy etc. That means your cheese pizza is costing more. And milk is up to $5.00 per gallon!)

But be forewarned - the foolish (or dishonest) "greenies" won't like that sort of thinking. And they will argue with and dispute the facts. Frankly, they have bought into a lot of BS, and now refuse to back away. Good luck if you choose to try and sway them with the facts.