OK, so a question has been legitimately asked, and the following is a theory I developed based on actual facts and more accurate translations:
"If evolution began at the beginning of Creation, then it seems Man was created through evolution, and not some God"...
To answer that, we need to fist step back and check on what the Scriptures - the original, Hebrew Scriptures - actually say on the subject of Genesis and Creation.
While the King James Version of the Bible - as with many translations - claims the world was created in six days, that is not what the Scriptures actually say. King James took a lot of liberties with his translation. The Hebrew Scriptures state the world was created in six "yom". In ancient Hebrew, the word yom was used to denote any period of time - it could be a day, a month, or even an eon. So it would be more accurate if KJV had simply said "...in six times..."
Now it could be a safe bet to assume each of those "yom" was a time span long enough to coincide with what science claims. The Earth and Sky could have been created over 4 billion years ago (the first "yom") while Man could have been created one million years ago (or whatever science eventually determines it to be), and that would be the 6th yom. From there, Man would have, by nature, evolved, to adapt as necessary
If this is the case, then both religion and science are in agreement - as they should be. But now comes the sticky little point about the Creation of Adam as detailed in Genesis.
Genesis states that Man was created in the 6th time, and then goes on to say that God rested during the 7th. And then Genesis says that God looked around and saw that what He did was good - but it was missing something. He needed something smart enough to care for what He created. A caretaker of the Earth, as it were. Lord knows Neanderthal was not up to the task, from an intellectual standpoint. It was only then that He created "The Adam". He had created early Man previously, but those dudes simply did not cut the mustard - they were going nowhere. It took them 40,000 just to learn how to make fire! By contrast, modern Man (descendants of The Adam) has walked the moon and created the internet and smart phones in just a few thousand years.
But how did He create The Adam? That's not hard to figure - even with our very limited abilities today, we can do genetic engineering. God could have taken the DNA of early Man and fiddled with it. We already do that. As for Eve - we also know how to clone, don't we? I'm sure that any God could out-do us on all counts.
Science knows that there were many species of Man, such as Neanderthal. And science knows they preceded modern Homo Sapiens, and they shared the Earth together. If we look at Genesis for what it actually says, Mankind was created in the 6th time, but such creatures were not intelligent enough to be the Caretakers. And that is when God decided to create "The Adam" - a version of Man that was intelligent enough to be caretaker.
This would also answer another puzzling question - Genesis says Cain went to "the land of Nod, where he took a wife." If Adam and Eve were the first, and therefore the only people Created, where did Cain's wife come from? If we accept the premise here, then the people in the land of Nod - and Cain's wife - was another, earlier species of Mankind. [NOTE: science has already determined that at least 8% of people living today carry some Neanderthal DNA)
Once we understand that the word "day" was not used in Genesis, everything begins to make sense, and in a way that both science and religion can live in harmony. And both Creation and evolution can share the same stage, and take equal billing.
As a side note: Many people disbelieve the Bible because it says so-and-so lived 900 years or so. However, since the original Scriptures never use the word "year", and uses "yom", and if we assume that in the case of Noah "yom" meant one lunar cycle (month, the normal period of time used back then), then Noah's 950 years becomes 79 years. Isn't that easier to swallow?
Now you have a scenario in which both Creation and evolution, and religion and science fit like pieces of a truly beautiful and miraculous puzzle.
Always be skeptical of a translation - exact translations are rarely possible.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
The Life of a Blueberry - Food For Thought...
Yes, I realize the title is kinda dumb, but there really is a point to this post.
The blueberry grows in a wilderness meadow. By mid-June they begin to ripen, and both birds and mammals, such as bears and deer, come to the meadow to feed on the delicious berries.
Later, those birds and mammals leave their excrement throughout their range. Within their "scat" and droppings will be the seeds of the blueberries they consumed because most of the seeds do not get digested due to their hard shells. So here you have a perfect planting of new blueberry bushes - the seeds are in manure, which fertilizes them and also keeps other critters from feeding on the seed.
There is a long line of "coincidences" that provide for the continued propagation of blueberry bushes. So many perfect coincidences, in fact, that it would almost be nonsense to believe that it was not designed that way.
Sometimes, the line of "coincidences" is longer, as it is with blackberries.
Blackberries grow in border areas - strips of land between woodland and meadow. They thrive under the branches of fir trees along the edges of the fields. They do not do as well in the deep woods, or in direct sun.
And here is how they propagate and spread: Birds prefer meadows and border areas. Birds eat the berries. Birds cannot digest blackberry seeds at all. Later, they rest on a pine branch along the woodland border and leave droppings, complete with blackberry seeds, under the protective branches of the fir tree.
Now, some would say that these coincidences can be explained as a product of evolution. However, evolution is something that only occurs within a specie, as when the horses toes evolved into a hoof. In order for evolution to explain inter-species actions, there would need to be some coordination between the various needs of the species. For example, for berries to develop seeds that could not be digested, they would have to be aware of a need to do so.
So here is the point of this post - anyone who has spent a great deal of time in nature, where civilization has not tainted that which is real and natural - that person would, if observant, notice virtually millions of such coincidences that create life cycles and provide for the propagation of species. That virtually everything in nature is connected in a fabric of life and death. Critter poops and fertilizes the ground where seeds can grow plants. Plants provide more seeds. The rat eats the seed. The cat eats the rat. The coyote eats the cat. The coyote poops and fertilizes the earth so more seeds can grow.
Experiencing nature that is raw and untainted, a person may begin to understand that it simply must be by design. It is far too complex and widespread to be an "accident". And if it involves multiple species working in a coordinated way, it cannot be explained by evolution. And that is precisely why every civilization that grew out of the wilderness and had been dependent upon nature have all known that there is an intelligence of some sort that is behind it all.
Having spent much of my own 72 years in nature, it was natural to see, and realize, that an intelligence must be behind it all. Call it what you will. But do not be so naive as to attribute it all to evolution.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe in evolution. But being a reasonably intelligent person with a much higher than normal I.Q. I also must believe in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact - and this IS a scientific, proveable fact - something must exist BEFORE it can evolve. And another proven scientific fact - inert, inanimate objects such as rocks cannot be explained by evolution, either. Only living things can evolve. And even if you could trace everything in Creation back to one singularity - just one thing from which everything sprang - then where did the "one thing" come from?
Yes, the first living thing may have evolved over time, but first, it had to come into being. As for all the non-living things, there really is no alternative but to believe in Creation. Certainly, to many it would seem foolish to believe some invisible, all-powerful sky person created everything. But is that any more foolish than to believe NOTHING did?
/
The blueberry grows in a wilderness meadow. By mid-June they begin to ripen, and both birds and mammals, such as bears and deer, come to the meadow to feed on the delicious berries.
Later, those birds and mammals leave their excrement throughout their range. Within their "scat" and droppings will be the seeds of the blueberries they consumed because most of the seeds do not get digested due to their hard shells. So here you have a perfect planting of new blueberry bushes - the seeds are in manure, which fertilizes them and also keeps other critters from feeding on the seed.
There is a long line of "coincidences" that provide for the continued propagation of blueberry bushes. So many perfect coincidences, in fact, that it would almost be nonsense to believe that it was not designed that way.
Sometimes, the line of "coincidences" is longer, as it is with blackberries.
Blackberries grow in border areas - strips of land between woodland and meadow. They thrive under the branches of fir trees along the edges of the fields. They do not do as well in the deep woods, or in direct sun.
And here is how they propagate and spread: Birds prefer meadows and border areas. Birds eat the berries. Birds cannot digest blackberry seeds at all. Later, they rest on a pine branch along the woodland border and leave droppings, complete with blackberry seeds, under the protective branches of the fir tree.
- Coincidence #1 - blackberries thrive under fir branches in border areas
- Coincidence #2 -birds prefer the same areas that blackberries thrive in
- Coincidence #3 - birds love blackberries but cannot digest blackberry seeds
- Coincidence #4 - birds normally rest - and poop - from branches of trees in border areas
- Coincidence #5 - seeds are deposited with the perfect fertilizer (bird poop), in a perfect area to thrive in
- Coincidence #6 - critters that feed on blackberry seeds are repelled by the poop, keeping seeds safe
Now, some would say that these coincidences can be explained as a product of evolution. However, evolution is something that only occurs within a specie, as when the horses toes evolved into a hoof. In order for evolution to explain inter-species actions, there would need to be some coordination between the various needs of the species. For example, for berries to develop seeds that could not be digested, they would have to be aware of a need to do so.
So here is the point of this post - anyone who has spent a great deal of time in nature, where civilization has not tainted that which is real and natural - that person would, if observant, notice virtually millions of such coincidences that create life cycles and provide for the propagation of species. That virtually everything in nature is connected in a fabric of life and death. Critter poops and fertilizes the ground where seeds can grow plants. Plants provide more seeds. The rat eats the seed. The cat eats the rat. The coyote eats the cat. The coyote poops and fertilizes the earth so more seeds can grow.
Experiencing nature that is raw and untainted, a person may begin to understand that it simply must be by design. It is far too complex and widespread to be an "accident". And if it involves multiple species working in a coordinated way, it cannot be explained by evolution. And that is precisely why every civilization that grew out of the wilderness and had been dependent upon nature have all known that there is an intelligence of some sort that is behind it all.
Having spent much of my own 72 years in nature, it was natural to see, and realize, that an intelligence must be behind it all. Call it what you will. But do not be so naive as to attribute it all to evolution.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe in evolution. But being a reasonably intelligent person with a much higher than normal I.Q. I also must believe in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact - and this IS a scientific, proveable fact - something must exist BEFORE it can evolve. And another proven scientific fact - inert, inanimate objects such as rocks cannot be explained by evolution, either. Only living things can evolve. And even if you could trace everything in Creation back to one singularity - just one thing from which everything sprang - then where did the "one thing" come from?
Yes, the first living thing may have evolved over time, but first, it had to come into being. As for all the non-living things, there really is no alternative but to believe in Creation. Certainly, to many it would seem foolish to believe some invisible, all-powerful sky person created everything. But is that any more foolish than to believe NOTHING did?
/
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Gun Laws - Not Designed To Protect Us From Crime
The title of this post is absolutely accurate - laws, no matter how well intentioned, and no matter the hype that surrounds them, will rarely have more than an inconsequential effect on criminal activity.
There are laws against rape - but rapists still rape. There are laws against murder - but killers still kill. And despite the law, bank robbers still rob banks, and tax cheats still cheat.
Gun control laws are no different. If a crimnal or unstable mind decides to kill, no gun control on Earth will thwart him or her. After all, if they do not fear execution for a mass killing, does anyone really believe they will fear 1-5 years for violating some gun law?
Laws do not prevent crime - they merely punish those who are caught violatng them. Laws do not protect the innocent, but they do manage to fool them into thinking they do. And the only people who are punished and suffer from gun controls are the honest, law-abiding innocent gun owners who lose their Constitutional Right to self-defense, or defending family. The criminal who violates gun laws and goes out and kills will be punished for killing - but NOT for violating the gun laws. After all, does anyone believe the courts would sentence a mass murderer to execution PLUS 5 years in prison?
Gun laws do not protect anyone from crime. All they do is punish those who violate them, often making criminals of honest, peaceful citizens who only want to feel secure with the ability to protect themselves.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
The Dirty Little Secret of Bloomberg's Health Plan
Another billionaire enters the Democrat race for the Oval Office. Michael Bloomberg has put out an ad concerning his health care plan - and it's just a big con job!
He says that he would provide Medicare-For-All to those who want it, but people who are happy with their current health care insurance can keep it. This is a deceptive way of conning people into thinking they can just keep the status quo if they wish. As such, he does not (appear to) threaten people with "single payer" health care.
NOT TRUE!
Medicare-for-all would, out of necessity, be paid for out of taxes. And those taxes would be assessed on every taxpayer - even those who choose to keep their own insurance. What this means is that those who choose their own insurance will be paying TWICE for health care - they would still have their insurance premiums and deductibles, and would also be paying higher taxes to pay for the medical care of all those who choose Medicare-for-all. The result, of course - and the sneaky reason for Bloomberg's proposal - is that those of us who choose our own insurance will be forced to drop it because of the excessive cost, resulting in "single-payer", and total government control of our health care. After all, who in their right mind would keep paying for private insurance when they are also paying for Medicare-for-all?
Make no mistake - Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a socialist tyrant backed with billions of dollars. And when you look at all the things he banned in New York, and all the freedoms New York City residents suffered in his hands, that is nothing compared to what he could and would do as POTUS. DiBlasio and Warren - on steroids!
/
He says that he would provide Medicare-For-All to those who want it, but people who are happy with their current health care insurance can keep it. This is a deceptive way of conning people into thinking they can just keep the status quo if they wish. As such, he does not (appear to) threaten people with "single payer" health care.
NOT TRUE!
Medicare-for-all would, out of necessity, be paid for out of taxes. And those taxes would be assessed on every taxpayer - even those who choose to keep their own insurance. What this means is that those who choose their own insurance will be paying TWICE for health care - they would still have their insurance premiums and deductibles, and would also be paying higher taxes to pay for the medical care of all those who choose Medicare-for-all. The result, of course - and the sneaky reason for Bloomberg's proposal - is that those of us who choose our own insurance will be forced to drop it because of the excessive cost, resulting in "single-payer", and total government control of our health care. After all, who in their right mind would keep paying for private insurance when they are also paying for Medicare-for-all?
Make no mistake - Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a socialist tyrant backed with billions of dollars. And when you look at all the things he banned in New York, and all the freedoms New York City residents suffered in his hands, that is nothing compared to what he could and would do as POTUS. DiBlasio and Warren - on steroids!
/
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Green New Deal - Let's Give 'em What They Want!
I suggest South Bend should implement it, and teach those ignorant protesters to be careful what they wish for. Bear with me a few moments...
South Bend could develop a plan to temporarily implement the Green New Deal - and all of its consequences - for a trial period of 90 days. During that time, all residents would be subject to penalties and/or heavy fines if they fail to adhere to the new regulations, which could include, but not be limited to:
And they should also be advised that should the regulations not be rescinded by voters in 90 days, that each resident would be liable, through direct tax, to pay an equal share of the cost to retrofit every building in the community, and provide housing for everyone, as stated in the Sanders - Ocasio-Cortes plan.
After being advised of the consequences, residents would then vote on whether or not they will support it. Only residents may vote.
I believe there is no chance in Hades that it would receive very many votes in favor - not even from those protestors, once they know that unfettered use of their gadgets and gizmos would suffer.
/
South Bend could develop a plan to temporarily implement the Green New Deal - and all of its consequences - for a trial period of 90 days. During that time, all residents would be subject to penalties and/or heavy fines if they fail to adhere to the new regulations, which could include, but not be limited to:
- No resident may use air travel. If they do, they would be fined an amount equal to the cost of that airfare
- Every residence would be restricted in the amount of electricity it can use each day. Once that amount has been reached, the city will shut off their "smart meter" until the next day
- No resident may use air conditioning, or they will be subject to a substantial fine. And thermostats in cold weather may not be set higher than 68 degrees
- Gasoline would be rationed on a per vehicle basis, no unnecessary travel using gasoline powered vehicles.
And they should also be advised that should the regulations not be rescinded by voters in 90 days, that each resident would be liable, through direct tax, to pay an equal share of the cost to retrofit every building in the community, and provide housing for everyone, as stated in the Sanders - Ocasio-Cortes plan.
After being advised of the consequences, residents would then vote on whether or not they will support it. Only residents may vote.
I believe there is no chance in Hades that it would receive very many votes in favor - not even from those protestors, once they know that unfettered use of their gadgets and gizmos would suffer.
/
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Proof of Biden/Burisma corruption?
The folks on the left - every one of them - are adamantly opposed to looking into the Bidens and their connections and roles in the corruption surrounding Burisma. They say it's because there is "no there there" and it would waste everyone's time. But that begets a very straightforward question: if there is no scandal, why are they so opposed to looking into it so they can show there is nothing there and clear Biden's name?
They can make up any excuses they want, but there is one thing they cannot explain away - whenever an innocent person is accused of something foul, their first and strongest urge is to clear their name. And if a person does not move Heaven and Earth to clear their name, you can bet the farm they are not innocent and have good reason for keeping it under wraps, and wanting everyone to just "forget it."
I try to be a reasonable, logical person. And it defies all reasonableness and logic for the Bidens - with the full support of all the Democrats in Congress and all the mainstream media - to not demand a full investigation to show they are not involved in any scandal. On the contrary - they are preventing any such investigation. Why?
Any sane, reasonable person knows why. There can only be the one reason. And while that does not technically constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is what it is.
/
They can make up any excuses they want, but there is one thing they cannot explain away - whenever an innocent person is accused of something foul, their first and strongest urge is to clear their name. And if a person does not move Heaven and Earth to clear their name, you can bet the farm they are not innocent and have good reason for keeping it under wraps, and wanting everyone to just "forget it."
I try to be a reasonable, logical person. And it defies all reasonableness and logic for the Bidens - with the full support of all the Democrats in Congress and all the mainstream media - to not demand a full investigation to show they are not involved in any scandal. On the contrary - they are preventing any such investigation. Why?
Any sane, reasonable person knows why. There can only be the one reason. And while that does not technically constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is what it is.
/
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Climate Change - A Scientific Reality Check
It's no secret that a huge portion of the world populations - and many "scientists" - are worried about the effects of climate change. And many, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are even claiming we will be extinct in 12 years if we do not do something radical.
Recently, thousands of so-called "scientists" (which sciences, I might ask - herpetologists - study of reptiles?) signed a petition to fight climate change, claiming it will destroy life as we know it.
But it is all pure BS and hype, and there is scientific proof.
First, we must understand that the climate is always changing, ever since the Earth was formed. Nothing in nature remains static, and everything is cyclical. So, yes, the climate is changing. But in no way is that detrimental to human life.
Just take a look at this climate chart created by actual CLIMATE scientists from real data:
What you see is that the Earth's normal temperature is normally substantially higher than it is now. It also shows that in periods of greater warmth, civilizations prospered. It also shows that the Earth was in a "mini" ice age from the 13th century through the first half of the 19th century, and we are only now beginning to get back to normal.
It is important to note that these statistics were compiled using scientific methods, studying Earth cores and other climate data from around the world. And the scientists who created this study and chart are actual climatologists, and not scientists from other unrelated fields, like those being used by the climate change fanatics.
Yes, the Earth may be warming, but that is a natural occurrence as we exit an ice age. And no, it will not harm us in any way of consequence. In fact, if history is any indicator (and it usually is), Mankind will actually thrive. If the Earth warms, there is much less need for fossil fuels to warm us. And as glaciers recede, more arable land is made available for growing crops to feed a growing population. And the melting provides more fresh water. And when we are warm and well fed, nations have less need to go to war, to take what they need from others (like mid-East oil).
So, where is the threat that climate change "chicken littles" are crying about? Elitist liberals like Al Gore, John Kerry and Barak Obama, all with multi-million dollar homes on the coast, may very well find themselves treading water IF the claims they are making actually come to fruition. Big financial centers, found mainly near seaports, may have to employ boats instead of Uber to get around, like in Venice, Italy. But it is not climate that is causing the damage, except indirectly - it is the result of human folly, where for centuries we have ignored Mother Nature and have insisted on building our cities so close to potentially rising waters.
Need proof? Every year the major rivers - Mississippi, Missouri etc. - reach flood stages, destroying homes and damaging cities. And yet every year people rebuild those homes and cities. It's a type of insanity, which is often defined as "doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different result."
Yes, the Earth may well be in a warming period. But that is a GOOD thing. It is also something that is natural, so there is no way we can stop it short of doing something drastic to create a cooling period, which would lead to an ice age. And THAT would harm us...
/
Recently, thousands of so-called "scientists" (which sciences, I might ask - herpetologists - study of reptiles?) signed a petition to fight climate change, claiming it will destroy life as we know it.
But it is all pure BS and hype, and there is scientific proof.
First, we must understand that the climate is always changing, ever since the Earth was formed. Nothing in nature remains static, and everything is cyclical. So, yes, the climate is changing. But in no way is that detrimental to human life.
Just take a look at this climate chart created by actual CLIMATE scientists from real data:
It is important to note that these statistics were compiled using scientific methods, studying Earth cores and other climate data from around the world. And the scientists who created this study and chart are actual climatologists, and not scientists from other unrelated fields, like those being used by the climate change fanatics.
Yes, the Earth may be warming, but that is a natural occurrence as we exit an ice age. And no, it will not harm us in any way of consequence. In fact, if history is any indicator (and it usually is), Mankind will actually thrive. If the Earth warms, there is much less need for fossil fuels to warm us. And as glaciers recede, more arable land is made available for growing crops to feed a growing population. And the melting provides more fresh water. And when we are warm and well fed, nations have less need to go to war, to take what they need from others (like mid-East oil).
So, where is the threat that climate change "chicken littles" are crying about? Elitist liberals like Al Gore, John Kerry and Barak Obama, all with multi-million dollar homes on the coast, may very well find themselves treading water IF the claims they are making actually come to fruition. Big financial centers, found mainly near seaports, may have to employ boats instead of Uber to get around, like in Venice, Italy. But it is not climate that is causing the damage, except indirectly - it is the result of human folly, where for centuries we have ignored Mother Nature and have insisted on building our cities so close to potentially rising waters.
Need proof? Every year the major rivers - Mississippi, Missouri etc. - reach flood stages, destroying homes and damaging cities. And yet every year people rebuild those homes and cities. It's a type of insanity, which is often defined as "doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different result."
Yes, the Earth may well be in a warming period. But that is a GOOD thing. It is also something that is natural, so there is no way we can stop it short of doing something drastic to create a cooling period, which would lead to an ice age. And THAT would harm us...
/
Sunday, November 3, 2019
What Sen. Warren is Not Telling You
Everyone in America (except the completely uninformed) is keenly aware of Senator Elizabeth Warren's many promises and policies. And they also know they will come with extreme costs. And we can also see by her following of millennials who have no clue about socialism that she has convinced many that these "freebie" programs - free health care, free college, free this and that - will be paid for by the richest of the rich. They believe this because she SAYS it, and because they WANT to believe it.
Here is what Warren and most other Democrat candidates are not telling people - either because they know it would destroy their candidacy, or because they are completely ignorant of how economics work, even in a socialist country.
Warren's plan includes over a dozen new taxes. While many of those are aimed at the rich, some - like the increased payroll tax - affects anyone who works. But here is an ugly truth that is not being explained by Warren, or even by those who oppose her...
EVERY tax, without exception, is paid by the poorest consumers among us. If you doubt this, here is how you can prove it to yourself.
Imagine you are the CEO of Microsoft (or Apple, or any company). Warren slaps you with a tax. What do you do? You have only three choices:
1) You can swallow that extra cost of doing business, in which case you have less capital for creating new products, tooling up, and paying investor dividends. Less hiring, less output, lower market share. If this is your choice, you will soon be looking to brush up your resume as you will not be CEO much longer
2) You can lay people off, reduce benefits or both. This shows weakness in the company, which is soon reflected in the stock market. In this instance, the poorest (your employees) are paying the price, and so is your stock value and investors
3) You can raise the prices of your products/services. This is the only option that allows you to to retain employees and keep share prices up. If you are a good business person who does the job of protecting your investors properly,this is the choice you must make.
Now look at those choices again - each and every one puts the burden of YOUR taxes onto those who buy or use your products/services, and those who are below you on the economic ladder. If you increase the cost of computer equipment, small businesses and anyone else who uses such equipment end up paying your taxes for you. Now those people are faced with the same scenario - pass those increased costs to those below THEM. If that person is a small business, they pass it on to THEIR consumers. If that person is a wage earner, he either suffers those higher prices or seeks a raise, resulting in his employer having to raise prices even more.
All taxes - every one - is paid by consumers (primarily the middle class) and filters down to the bottom, the poorest among us. Unlike those above them, they have no one below them to pass the costs on to.
When Warren - or any politician - claims they will only tax the rich, they are lying to you, and they know it.
Here is what Warren and most other Democrat candidates are not telling people - either because they know it would destroy their candidacy, or because they are completely ignorant of how economics work, even in a socialist country.
Warren's plan includes over a dozen new taxes. While many of those are aimed at the rich, some - like the increased payroll tax - affects anyone who works. But here is an ugly truth that is not being explained by Warren, or even by those who oppose her...
EVERY tax, without exception, is paid by the poorest consumers among us. If you doubt this, here is how you can prove it to yourself.
Imagine you are the CEO of Microsoft (or Apple, or any company). Warren slaps you with a tax. What do you do? You have only three choices:
1) You can swallow that extra cost of doing business, in which case you have less capital for creating new products, tooling up, and paying investor dividends. Less hiring, less output, lower market share. If this is your choice, you will soon be looking to brush up your resume as you will not be CEO much longer
2) You can lay people off, reduce benefits or both. This shows weakness in the company, which is soon reflected in the stock market. In this instance, the poorest (your employees) are paying the price, and so is your stock value and investors
3) You can raise the prices of your products/services. This is the only option that allows you to to retain employees and keep share prices up. If you are a good business person who does the job of protecting your investors properly,this is the choice you must make.
Now look at those choices again - each and every one puts the burden of YOUR taxes onto those who buy or use your products/services, and those who are below you on the economic ladder. If you increase the cost of computer equipment, small businesses and anyone else who uses such equipment end up paying your taxes for you. Now those people are faced with the same scenario - pass those increased costs to those below THEM. If that person is a small business, they pass it on to THEIR consumers. If that person is a wage earner, he either suffers those higher prices or seeks a raise, resulting in his employer having to raise prices even more.
All taxes - every one - is paid by consumers (primarily the middle class) and filters down to the bottom, the poorest among us. Unlike those above them, they have no one below them to pass the costs on to.
When Warren - or any politician - claims they will only tax the rich, they are lying to you, and they know it.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
While the Pundits Play Checkers, Trump Plays Chess
The title of this very short article says it all. Almost to a man, the pundits are decrying Trump's withdrawal from the Middle East, claiming "no one will trust us anymore", and that he is "abandoning our national security interests in the Middle East".
Here's the problem with their myopic assessments - Trump is far, far smarter than they are. He thinks and strategizes several moves ahead, while they are wasting time pondering only the next move.
China was counting on us wasting our resources in the Middle East, as Russia did in the '80's, giving China a huge economic and military edge. Now China is scared, and must attempt to recalibrate if they can. Iran now must try and keep Turkey out of Iraq. And Russia, with a dwindling economy, must now waste THEIR resources in the Middle East, caught between two enemies that have been at war since the sons of Abraham parted ways.
Meanwhile, America saves trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. America takes care of America, as Trump promised.
As for "abandoning our security interests in the Middle East" - exactly what are those interests? No matter how much we spend or how many lives are lost we are not going to change Iran or Syria. As for ISIS, Trump has already made it clear that if they reconstitute, we will go back and smash them again in a matter of days. No, we have no security interests in the Middle East.
Checker players vs a world-class chess master.
'Nuff said!
Here's the problem with their myopic assessments - Trump is far, far smarter than they are. He thinks and strategizes several moves ahead, while they are wasting time pondering only the next move.
China was counting on us wasting our resources in the Middle East, as Russia did in the '80's, giving China a huge economic and military edge. Now China is scared, and must attempt to recalibrate if they can. Iran now must try and keep Turkey out of Iraq. And Russia, with a dwindling economy, must now waste THEIR resources in the Middle East, caught between two enemies that have been at war since the sons of Abraham parted ways.
Meanwhile, America saves trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. America takes care of America, as Trump promised.
As for "abandoning our security interests in the Middle East" - exactly what are those interests? No matter how much we spend or how many lives are lost we are not going to change Iran or Syria. As for ISIS, Trump has already made it clear that if they reconstitute, we will go back and smash them again in a matter of days. No, we have no security interests in the Middle East.
Checker players vs a world-class chess master.
'Nuff said!
Monday, September 23, 2019
Greta Thunberg - In Need of a Realty Check
16 year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg tore into world leaders at the U.N. making ignorant, untrue atatements like, "People are suffering. People
are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of
a mass extinction..."
None of the above are actual facts.
It is a true shame that the liberal media and teachers and professors have so completely brainwashed our youth into believing climate change is that kind of "existential threat". And worse that political leaders are pressured into buying into the hype in order to hold onto power.
It is even more concerning that Thunberg and her fellow activists never even bother to find out the true facts about climate - they just swallow the "climate change" line hook, line and sinker, without questioning it.
If they were to do some actual research they would find these facts, as based on empirical evidence and absolute proof:
Over the 4 billion year life of this planet, over 85% of that time it has been appreciably hotter than now. Science has proven that beyond any doubt. In fact, we are currently in a cool period where the planet is getting back to normal after the "Little Ice Age" (1250-1850 A.D.). Whereas the Earth is normally warmer, and it is the natural state, there is nothing mere mortals can do to change it.
Greenland got its name because, until the Little Ice Age (LIA) it was green, and the inhabitants were agrarian - peaceful farmers. When LIA came, the inhabitants had to leave and become seafaring raiders of places like Scotland and England. They became known as the Vikings.
In EVERY instance that the Earth experienced a warm period (always following an ice age) Mankind prospered, thrived and multiplied. And in every period of cooling, Mankind suffered, often to the point of near extinction.
Being in a period of increasing warmth is a good thing - there will be more arable land for food production. Glacial ice provides more fresh water. Warmth requires less fuel for heating homes. And we know that statistically, people in the nothern climes tend to be less friendly, less happy and more war-like. Compare the lifestyle of an Eskimo to that of a Pacific Islander!
Certainly, it is possible that sea levels will rise, but in the 30 years activists have been screaming that "the sky is falling", we have yet to see much of that at all. But even if it does rise, that will only displace the rich elitists living in oceanside estates. The benefits of warming, which the professors and liberal media are not bothering to mention, far outweigh the negatives.
Which raises this question: if Gore, Obama and others crying that the oceans will rise and drown us, why have all of them recently purchased multi-million dollar homes on the ocean? Because they do not BELIEVE the hype. They, unlike the activists, are better informed. And they are using the fear-mongering to hold onto power and wealth.
One more important point - there is nothing in nature that remains static. Everything changes, usually in cycles. So if we are not getting warmer, we will certainly get colder. And no sane person wants that!
None of the above are actual facts.
It is a true shame that the liberal media and teachers and professors have so completely brainwashed our youth into believing climate change is that kind of "existential threat". And worse that political leaders are pressured into buying into the hype in order to hold onto power.
It is even more concerning that Thunberg and her fellow activists never even bother to find out the true facts about climate - they just swallow the "climate change" line hook, line and sinker, without questioning it.
If they were to do some actual research they would find these facts, as based on empirical evidence and absolute proof:
Over the 4 billion year life of this planet, over 85% of that time it has been appreciably hotter than now. Science has proven that beyond any doubt. In fact, we are currently in a cool period where the planet is getting back to normal after the "Little Ice Age" (1250-1850 A.D.). Whereas the Earth is normally warmer, and it is the natural state, there is nothing mere mortals can do to change it.
Greenland got its name because, until the Little Ice Age (LIA) it was green, and the inhabitants were agrarian - peaceful farmers. When LIA came, the inhabitants had to leave and become seafaring raiders of places like Scotland and England. They became known as the Vikings.
In EVERY instance that the Earth experienced a warm period (always following an ice age) Mankind prospered, thrived and multiplied. And in every period of cooling, Mankind suffered, often to the point of near extinction.
Being in a period of increasing warmth is a good thing - there will be more arable land for food production. Glacial ice provides more fresh water. Warmth requires less fuel for heating homes. And we know that statistically, people in the nothern climes tend to be less friendly, less happy and more war-like. Compare the lifestyle of an Eskimo to that of a Pacific Islander!
Certainly, it is possible that sea levels will rise, but in the 30 years activists have been screaming that "the sky is falling", we have yet to see much of that at all. But even if it does rise, that will only displace the rich elitists living in oceanside estates. The benefits of warming, which the professors and liberal media are not bothering to mention, far outweigh the negatives.
Which raises this question: if Gore, Obama and others crying that the oceans will rise and drown us, why have all of them recently purchased multi-million dollar homes on the ocean? Because they do not BELIEVE the hype. They, unlike the activists, are better informed. And they are using the fear-mongering to hold onto power and wealth.
One more important point - there is nothing in nature that remains static. Everything changes, usually in cycles. So if we are not getting warmer, we will certainly get colder. And no sane person wants that!
Saturday, September 14, 2019
What To Do With Non-Violent Criminals
A little over half of all criminal offenders prosecuted and imprisoned are for non-violent crimes. But the purpose of prisons is not for punishment, nor for reform - it is to keep the general public safe from those who would do us physical harm. We can punish non-violent criminals without using prisons.
The cost to imprison a person is $50,000-$60,000 per year, and while it may be a worthwhile cost to keep a violent person out of circulation, it is not justified for keeping a non-violent person out of circulation, particularly since there are other, more viable and more fair solutions.
Here is one suggestion that would quickly and easily solve the problem of imprisoning non-violent offenders. This plan solves (4) issues:
- Eliminates prison over-crowding
- Makes victims "whole"
- Saves taxpayers $35,000,000,000 annually
- Treats non-violent offenders fairly and humanely
First, of course, is to require offenders to make their victim(s) "whole", through restitution or repairing any damage their criminal action(s) may have caused. See below in the event they are financially incapable of doing so.
Whereas the greatest expense of prison is the salaries of all the necessary guards and other employees, I would suggest that each county set up a non-secure (no bars or fences) facility run by "house mothers" that monitor the residents - only one such person per shift, and perhaps a counselor/case manager. Residents may only leave the facility to work and earn the money necessary to make their victim(s) "whole" and to pay their own share of the costs of housing them. Once they have done so, they would be released.
In the unlikely event that any resident leaves the residence without permission, they would immediately be relegated to doing their time in prison - "alternative time" determined by the court.
Residents of these facilities would have free run-of-house, like a half-way house, but the residences would have very limited amenities - it should not be so nice that residents don't mind living there. There needs to be incentive to fulfill their obligation and then transfer back into society.
Since the convicted residents, themselves, are paying their own housing costs, this would eliminate the $50,000-$60,00 annual cost of imprisoning each. With 700,000 non-violent inmates each year, that would save taxpayers $35,000,000,000 a year and eliminate overcrowding in prisons.
/
Monday, August 5, 2019
How A Culture Creates A Mass Murderer
Although gun ownership is way up, but shooting deaths are down in
comparison, there is a lot of angst and the wringing of hands when some
unstable person goes on a shooting spree. And in the midst of this,
people seem to be at a loss as to what we can do to put a cork in it.
And that is what perplexes me - people seem unable to grasp that it is a
waste of time trying to to fix the problem by RE-acting instead of by
acting.
Before we can figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?
The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.
If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.
The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.
Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.
Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.
To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.
And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?
Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.
Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.
I do not oppose change - change is necessary. But here is the difference: conservatives,by nature, take it slowly, trying to make sure there are no undesirable long-term consequences, while liberals tend to "want it now", and future consequences be damned.
So, just how do we fix this? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.
Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do do, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.
/
Before we can figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?
The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.
If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.
The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.
Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.
Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.
To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.
And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?
Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.
Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.
I do not oppose change - change is necessary. But here is the difference: conservatives,by nature, take it slowly, trying to make sure there are no undesirable long-term consequences, while liberals tend to "want it now", and future consequences be damned.
So, just how do we fix this? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.
Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do do, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.
/
Sunday, July 14, 2019
"Cultural Appropriation" is BS
The radical political correctness police keep harping and railing against anyone who eats or wears anything from another culture, claiming it is somehow "wrong". Today they are slamming Rihanna. To those idiots I would only say that America is, and always has been a "melting pot", and most sane, reasonable people are proud of that. Only haters, bigots and morons would take issue with it.
According to them, only Mexicans can make or eat tacos; only Italians can eat pasta, only Japanese may wear a kimono. And only black people can have dreadlocks. That's all just so much BS.
Everyone in America "appropriates" the cultures of others - how many of the black "Do-Wop" groups of the 50's wore their hair in an American DA (short for ducks a**)? And how many Mexicans have eaten a hamburger or hot dog? And how many foreign nationals play, or even watch a the Great American Pasttime - a baseball game?
I have always believed political correctness is evil, and capable of dooming not only democracy, but civilization itself, and that is no exaggeration. It divides people. It forces people to control (or be controlled), and even squelch their thoughts and beliefs. It is, at its very core, the central focus of fascism.
When PC first started, radicals would say it's wrong to call someone "fat", and we should use terms like "weight challenged" in order to not offend the obese. But who in their right mind actually believes that the fat guy doesn't realize you are still calling him fat, only in different words? No, PC does not prevent anyone from being offended - it simply makes radicals feel less guilty about the verbiage they use, and more importantly it is designed to control our speech.
Like "undocumented" instead of "illegal". And the "homeless" are now "outdoor urban dwellers", "Merry Christmas" is "Seasons Greetings" (and Christmas is the "Winter Festival"), the poor are "economically marginalised" and an "insult" is now "emotional rape". Radical fascists in America realize that to change minds and beliefs, and control the masses, one must first control the speech. Our Founders specifically made "freedom of speech" the FIRST amendment in the Bill Of Rights for good reason. PC is the antithesis of the first amendment, and since it controls speech, it is blatantly fascist.
Note that "politically correct" was initially coined by Leon Trotsky to refer favorably to those whose views remained in sync with the ever-shifting Bolshevik Party line. This was important, as "not PC" people risked prison or death.
Back to "cultural appropriation" - today I will wear a sombrero while eating a pizza, then drive my Japanese car to Native American event, then watch a fireworks display (which were invented by the Chinese). And I may even call some dude "Bro".
/
According to them, only Mexicans can make or eat tacos; only Italians can eat pasta, only Japanese may wear a kimono. And only black people can have dreadlocks. That's all just so much BS.
Everyone in America "appropriates" the cultures of others - how many of the black "Do-Wop" groups of the 50's wore their hair in an American DA (short for ducks a**)? And how many Mexicans have eaten a hamburger or hot dog? And how many foreign nationals play, or even watch a the Great American Pasttime - a baseball game?
I have always believed political correctness is evil, and capable of dooming not only democracy, but civilization itself, and that is no exaggeration. It divides people. It forces people to control (or be controlled), and even squelch their thoughts and beliefs. It is, at its very core, the central focus of fascism.
When PC first started, radicals would say it's wrong to call someone "fat", and we should use terms like "weight challenged" in order to not offend the obese. But who in their right mind actually believes that the fat guy doesn't realize you are still calling him fat, only in different words? No, PC does not prevent anyone from being offended - it simply makes radicals feel less guilty about the verbiage they use, and more importantly it is designed to control our speech.
Like "undocumented" instead of "illegal". And the "homeless" are now "outdoor urban dwellers", "Merry Christmas" is "Seasons Greetings" (and Christmas is the "Winter Festival"), the poor are "economically marginalised" and an "insult" is now "emotional rape". Radical fascists in America realize that to change minds and beliefs, and control the masses, one must first control the speech. Our Founders specifically made "freedom of speech" the FIRST amendment in the Bill Of Rights for good reason. PC is the antithesis of the first amendment, and since it controls speech, it is blatantly fascist.
Note that "politically correct" was initially coined by Leon Trotsky to refer favorably to those whose views remained in sync with the ever-shifting Bolshevik Party line. This was important, as "not PC" people risked prison or death.
Back to "cultural appropriation" - today I will wear a sombrero while eating a pizza, then drive my Japanese car to Native American event, then watch a fireworks display (which were invented by the Chinese). And I may even call some dude "Bro".
/
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Is Trump Responsible For Those Deaths at the Border?
To hear Beto O'Rourke and others on the left tell it, President Trump is responsible for the deaths of a father and daughter who drowned trying to get into our country. And I understand why they make that claim. But let's take an HONEST look at what occured.
For nearly 50 years Congress has refused to do anything to fix the loopholes in our immigration policies and laws. Worse yet, for 50 years administrations - both Democrat and Republican - have refused to adequately enforce the laws we do have.
During the previous administration, immigrants were encouraged to come here, in hopes of being covered under the "Dreamer's" policy known as DACA. And as progressives on the left institute Sanctuary policies to protect illegal immigrants - even if they are gang members or criminals - and call for more open borders, elimination of ICE and now decriminalization of entering the U.S. illegally, well, you may as well send out personalized invitations to anyone who would rather be here than in their own country.
And that is precisely why that father and daughter died. Had they not been "invited" by progressive, leftist policies, they might never have come at all, or better yet, might have tried a legal method of entry.
President Trump did not send out those invitations. Instead, he is the first president in decades to take illegal immigration seriously, and try to end it by actually enforcing our immigration laws. And when one side sends out an invitation, and the other side snaps it away, people will get hurt.
There are two possible solutions to preventing such deaths. On the one hand we could do what those on the left want, and open our borders to all who come. On the other hand, we could stop sending out invitations like sanctuary cities and states, and providing them with the means and the legal representation to assist them in flouting our laws, close loopholes, and create more legal methods for entry that concentrates on merit. The former would result in our schools, hospitals and cities being over-run, resulting in a cost of trillions to try and rectify, not to mention allowing some pretty bad people to prey on our citizens. The latter would result in the rule of law being upheld, and an immigration system that is sane, sensible, logical and good for our country.
Yes, I feel for people in other countries who long for a better life. And perhaps we can look into ways we might help them create a better life within the boundaries of their own country. But I think progressives should make a stab at understanding something - our own founders were no different from these people, insofar as being downtrodden and ruled harshly. But there is a huge difference - our founders did not run! They FOUGHT to make this country what it is. And we have fought to keep it ever since. In doing so, there is a strong sense of pride in our country - at least or those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing America is a bad place. But how can it be bad when so many risk life and limb to get here?
The point: these people trying to run from their own country should stop, turn around and FIGHT for something better in their own lands. Unless they do that, they will never be worth anything in ANY country they live in, because they simply are not willing to do the work necessary to fix their own.
Now, back to the claims on the left that Trump is responsible, and why they make that claim - they have no choice. They must either try and blame someone else, or accept responsibility for paving the way for such things to happen. It is either blame Trump, or blame sanctuary cities, and all those rewards that progressives want to issue to illegal immigrants.
And we all know that progressives never accept responsibility for their mistakes. Ted Kennedy anyone? Hillary and her illegal server? And even abortion right up to the moment of birth - the ultimate ditching of personal responsibility that ends in terminating an innocent life. The last time I heard a liberal accept responsibility for anything was when President John F Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
No, do not expect "Beto" or his ilk to accept any responsibility for the mistakes made by the policies they hold dear.
/
For nearly 50 years Congress has refused to do anything to fix the loopholes in our immigration policies and laws. Worse yet, for 50 years administrations - both Democrat and Republican - have refused to adequately enforce the laws we do have.
During the previous administration, immigrants were encouraged to come here, in hopes of being covered under the "Dreamer's" policy known as DACA. And as progressives on the left institute Sanctuary policies to protect illegal immigrants - even if they are gang members or criminals - and call for more open borders, elimination of ICE and now decriminalization of entering the U.S. illegally, well, you may as well send out personalized invitations to anyone who would rather be here than in their own country.
And that is precisely why that father and daughter died. Had they not been "invited" by progressive, leftist policies, they might never have come at all, or better yet, might have tried a legal method of entry.
President Trump did not send out those invitations. Instead, he is the first president in decades to take illegal immigration seriously, and try to end it by actually enforcing our immigration laws. And when one side sends out an invitation, and the other side snaps it away, people will get hurt.
There are two possible solutions to preventing such deaths. On the one hand we could do what those on the left want, and open our borders to all who come. On the other hand, we could stop sending out invitations like sanctuary cities and states, and providing them with the means and the legal representation to assist them in flouting our laws, close loopholes, and create more legal methods for entry that concentrates on merit. The former would result in our schools, hospitals and cities being over-run, resulting in a cost of trillions to try and rectify, not to mention allowing some pretty bad people to prey on our citizens. The latter would result in the rule of law being upheld, and an immigration system that is sane, sensible, logical and good for our country.
Yes, I feel for people in other countries who long for a better life. And perhaps we can look into ways we might help them create a better life within the boundaries of their own country. But I think progressives should make a stab at understanding something - our own founders were no different from these people, insofar as being downtrodden and ruled harshly. But there is a huge difference - our founders did not run! They FOUGHT to make this country what it is. And we have fought to keep it ever since. In doing so, there is a strong sense of pride in our country - at least or those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing America is a bad place. But how can it be bad when so many risk life and limb to get here?
The point: these people trying to run from their own country should stop, turn around and FIGHT for something better in their own lands. Unless they do that, they will never be worth anything in ANY country they live in, because they simply are not willing to do the work necessary to fix their own.
Now, back to the claims on the left that Trump is responsible, and why they make that claim - they have no choice. They must either try and blame someone else, or accept responsibility for paving the way for such things to happen. It is either blame Trump, or blame sanctuary cities, and all those rewards that progressives want to issue to illegal immigrants.
And we all know that progressives never accept responsibility for their mistakes. Ted Kennedy anyone? Hillary and her illegal server? And even abortion right up to the moment of birth - the ultimate ditching of personal responsibility that ends in terminating an innocent life. The last time I heard a liberal accept responsibility for anything was when President John F Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
No, do not expect "Beto" or his ilk to accept any responsibility for the mistakes made by the policies they hold dear.
/
Monday, April 1, 2019
They're Looking At Health Care All Wrong
Politicians and pundits on all sides are looking at health care costs all wrong. They are all focused on INSURANCE, and not the cost of the health care, itself. And whenever you insert someone else between you and a product or service, that person needs to be paid which only serves to make the product/service more expensive. And insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies because they have deeper pockets than individuals, and there are few restraints on increasing costs since insurers just pass those costs on to the individuals paying the premiums.
If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them. In this post I am not going to include the lifetime damage to bodies because of vaccines which are literally designed to weaken the immune system (or it would destroy the vaccine) which, in turn, makes the patient much more susceptible to more serious autoimmune diseases. I'm not including that here, as it is far too late to change what already is. But people should seriously consider swearing off ANY vaccines henceforth.
First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and preservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.
And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.
Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe and not risk a lawsuit.
To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists as long as we already know the diagnosis.
Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect and had nothing to do with my issue) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. And as it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting that eventual determination.
Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all. Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services(?) they provide.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Patients should be offered the option of declining additional tests and signing a waiver of liability. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost if your issue has been controlled or eliminated, but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who may, in turn refer you to some other doctor.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I needed to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a referal. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on. That said...while the R&D is done in America, most drugs are actually manufactured overseas, predominantly China. It makes good sense to bring that manufacturing back to the states and by a non-profit government agency, then sold on a non-profit basis. Big pharma can make their R&D profit, but manufacture and packaging should be on cost basis, to reduce the cost overall.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment, athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected should be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
As a final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more.
Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.
/
If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them. In this post I am not going to include the lifetime damage to bodies because of vaccines which are literally designed to weaken the immune system (or it would destroy the vaccine) which, in turn, makes the patient much more susceptible to more serious autoimmune diseases. I'm not including that here, as it is far too late to change what already is. But people should seriously consider swearing off ANY vaccines henceforth.
First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and preservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.
And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.
Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe and not risk a lawsuit.
To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists as long as we already know the diagnosis.
Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect and had nothing to do with my issue) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. And as it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting that eventual determination.
Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.
A PROPOSAL:
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all. Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services(?) they provide.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Patients should be offered the option of declining additional tests and signing a waiver of liability. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost if your issue has been controlled or eliminated, but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who may, in turn refer you to some other doctor.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I needed to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a referal. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on. That said...while the R&D is done in America, most drugs are actually manufactured overseas, predominantly China. It makes good sense to bring that manufacturing back to the states and by a non-profit government agency, then sold on a non-profit basis. Big pharma can make their R&D profit, but manufacture and packaging should be on cost basis, to reduce the cost overall.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment, athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected should be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
As a final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more.
Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.
/
Monday, March 25, 2019
What Democrats Are Overlooking (Mueller Report)
Robert Mueller was treated by Democrats like an infallible God during
his investigation of Trump, with phrases like, "Just wait until the
Mueller Report comes in - then we'll have Trump indicted." They were so
sure not only because Mueller has a reputation for being the best
prosecutor, with great integrity, but also because his team was made up
of partisan, anti-trump people, including from the Clinton Team, and
they had an unlimited budget and power. They had two years, issued
thousands of subpoenas and interviewed several hundred people. Yessir,
if there was any inkling of a crime, they would certainly dig it up.
And for two years we saw exactly that happening. And in spite of all the effort, cost and time, the Special Counsel found exactly - NOTHING! If that team of anti-trumpers could not turn up anything, any sane, rational person would have to say, "Well, I guess there is nothing there" and move on with the People's business.
But not the Democrats in Congress or those running in 2020. All of a sudden they have escaped the asylum and are now saying the Mueller Report is bogus, biased in favor of Trump. Really? And now, rather than finally getting back to doing the people's business, they are intent on re-investigating in search of the crimes that the Mueller team was unable to turn up.
Instead of legislating, they are wasting America's time and resources on more bogus investigations to find what just is not there.
Any qualified shrink would say that is derangement. I don't know about you, but I am horrified that America is being represented by deranged people, so intent on damaging the President that they will alienate everyone but their far-left, radical base, and throw away any chance at keeping the power they crave.
America is a great country. Trump has made huge advances, economically and in foreign policy. He is pushing the country forward in spite of the Democrats and corrupt media trying to pull him down. It's time to tell our representatives and senators if they want to take Trump down, do it at the ballot box in two years, but until then to SUPPORT the man who is actually doing the job that needs to be done, instead of trying to be an anchor preventing it.
/
And for two years we saw exactly that happening. And in spite of all the effort, cost and time, the Special Counsel found exactly - NOTHING! If that team of anti-trumpers could not turn up anything, any sane, rational person would have to say, "Well, I guess there is nothing there" and move on with the People's business.
But not the Democrats in Congress or those running in 2020. All of a sudden they have escaped the asylum and are now saying the Mueller Report is bogus, biased in favor of Trump. Really? And now, rather than finally getting back to doing the people's business, they are intent on re-investigating in search of the crimes that the Mueller team was unable to turn up.
Instead of legislating, they are wasting America's time and resources on more bogus investigations to find what just is not there.
Any qualified shrink would say that is derangement. I don't know about you, but I am horrified that America is being represented by deranged people, so intent on damaging the President that they will alienate everyone but their far-left, radical base, and throw away any chance at keeping the power they crave.
America is a great country. Trump has made huge advances, economically and in foreign policy. He is pushing the country forward in spite of the Democrats and corrupt media trying to pull him down. It's time to tell our representatives and senators if they want to take Trump down, do it at the ballot box in two years, but until then to SUPPORT the man who is actually doing the job that needs to be done, instead of trying to be an anchor preventing it.
/
Why 2020 Hopefuls Seem to Defy Sanity
It seems really strange - Democrats seeking the Presidency are veering farther and farther to the left in an effort to please their base, while alienating the vast majority of Americans. "Forever" investigations, impeachment, infanticide, socialism, open borders, sanctuary cities, collusion - these are far from mainstream, yet all the hopefuls are touting them as their policy. Why would they stake their claim on such things? They must know they cannot win the general election on those issues.
Ah! But that is precisely the point! They must first GET to the general election - get the nomination. And the only way they think they can win the nomination is by pandering to their far-left base. And I am sure they realize that once they win the nod, they will have a really tough time pivoting to the center. But, alas, there seems to be no other choice.
Frankly, I don't see any of the current string of hopefuls getting that far. What I see is a Democrat "Dark Horse", who gets into the race at the last minute, as did Bill Clinton, and by being the moderate, sane voice in the crowd, easily wins the nomination.
If not, the Democrats have a better chance of winning Mega Millions than winning the White House.
Ah! But that is precisely the point! They must first GET to the general election - get the nomination. And the only way they think they can win the nomination is by pandering to their far-left base. And I am sure they realize that once they win the nod, they will have a really tough time pivoting to the center. But, alas, there seems to be no other choice.
Frankly, I don't see any of the current string of hopefuls getting that far. What I see is a Democrat "Dark Horse", who gets into the race at the last minute, as did Bill Clinton, and by being the moderate, sane voice in the crowd, easily wins the nomination.
If not, the Democrats have a better chance of winning Mega Millions than winning the White House.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Why The Electoral College Is Necessary
It seems that every Democrat running for President, all of whom are trying to change the voting rules so they can win more elections, are in favor of eliminating the Electoral College. And, indeed, that would insure that Democrats never leave office.
The Founding Fathers understood that the election of the presidency must be fair to all. They understood that if the popular vote were used, the large metropolitan centers like New York and Los Angeles would always determine the presidential elections, because they have so many more people. The Founders knew instinctively that it would be wrong for small geographic areas to determine the policies for all of America because 20 percent of America would rule the entire country.
Seen in a more practical way, consider states like Iowa or Wyoming. Since they have relatively small populations, do you really think any politician would even bother to campaign there if the Electoral College was eliminated? And by extension, would their votes even matter? Of course not.
The Founders also understood something else that is lost on many people - people in the cities have much different priorities than those in rural areas. Cities are where the money is, and they have all the amenities at their feet. There are more jobs. They are far removed from the needs of those who still have to struggle on their own, without those amenities, and without all the power of cities like New York. Hence, city people tend to be more liberal. It is simply a case of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs - the most basic needs are survival, while the highest levels are more social oriented.
What this means - and intelligent people understand, is that without the Electoral College, the 80% of the people who do not live in cities would just be forgotten, as their votes would be meaningless. The large populations of liberal bastions would always rule.
And that is precisely why Democrats want to upset the apple cart and do away with "the little people" having any representation. You know, the ones they call the "fly over states", who cling to their Bibles and guns.
The Electoral College provides small, less populated states with fair and equal representation. And that is why politicians have to campaign in every state like New Hampshire and Iowa, and not just New York and California.
And now the Democrats are getting worse - states like Colorado and Washington plan on giving all their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote NATIONALLY. In other words, the popular votes in those states will not matter, and would not count. For example, if every single person in that state votes for a Republican, but the NATIONAL popular vote goes for the Democrat, that Republican state would award all their electoral votes to the Democrat, effectively throwing out every vote in their state. And to think people like Senator Warren and Bozo O'Rourke say they want every vote to count. No - they only want DEMOCRAT votes to count.
The Founding Fathers understood that the election of the presidency must be fair to all. They understood that if the popular vote were used, the large metropolitan centers like New York and Los Angeles would always determine the presidential elections, because they have so many more people. The Founders knew instinctively that it would be wrong for small geographic areas to determine the policies for all of America because 20 percent of America would rule the entire country.
Seen in a more practical way, consider states like Iowa or Wyoming. Since they have relatively small populations, do you really think any politician would even bother to campaign there if the Electoral College was eliminated? And by extension, would their votes even matter? Of course not.
The Founders also understood something else that is lost on many people - people in the cities have much different priorities than those in rural areas. Cities are where the money is, and they have all the amenities at their feet. There are more jobs. They are far removed from the needs of those who still have to struggle on their own, without those amenities, and without all the power of cities like New York. Hence, city people tend to be more liberal. It is simply a case of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs - the most basic needs are survival, while the highest levels are more social oriented.
What this means - and intelligent people understand, is that without the Electoral College, the 80% of the people who do not live in cities would just be forgotten, as their votes would be meaningless. The large populations of liberal bastions would always rule.
And that is precisely why Democrats want to upset the apple cart and do away with "the little people" having any representation. You know, the ones they call the "fly over states", who cling to their Bibles and guns.
The Electoral College provides small, less populated states with fair and equal representation. And that is why politicians have to campaign in every state like New Hampshire and Iowa, and not just New York and California.
And now the Democrats are getting worse - states like Colorado and Washington plan on giving all their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote NATIONALLY. In other words, the popular votes in those states will not matter, and would not count. For example, if every single person in that state votes for a Republican, but the NATIONAL popular vote goes for the Democrat, that Republican state would award all their electoral votes to the Democrat, effectively throwing out every vote in their state. And to think people like Senator Warren and Bozo O'Rourke say they want every vote to count. No - they only want DEMOCRAT votes to count.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Trump's Rhetoric vs Identity Politics
Tim Kaine and many other Democrats, liberal elites and media keep calling out Trump for his "rhetoric" they claim is stirring up all the trouble on planet Earth. But here's a newsflash - most of the trouble, the fighting, hate and discontent is caused by the identity politics of the left that is designed to get groups of people fighting against each other - the poor against the wealthy, women against the men, blacks against the whites, straights against gays, Christians against atheists...you know it's true - you hear it every day on Twitter, Instagram anbd in the news.
The identity politics played by the left is designed to "divide and conquer". They use the tactic in order to pander to each group for their votes, to keep them in power. The simple fact that dividing people is the surest way to create hate and discontent doesn't matter to them. Only POWER!
For them to claim the basis of the hate is Trump's "rhetoric" is absurd, particularly since his rhetoric is nothing more nor anything less than being politically incorrect - in other words, HONEST and GENUINE.
Wake up, America! The deceivers the Bible speaks of are among us.
/
The identity politics played by the left is designed to "divide and conquer". They use the tactic in order to pander to each group for their votes, to keep them in power. The simple fact that dividing people is the surest way to create hate and discontent doesn't matter to them. Only POWER!
For them to claim the basis of the hate is Trump's "rhetoric" is absurd, particularly since his rhetoric is nothing more nor anything less than being politically incorrect - in other words, HONEST and GENUINE.
Wake up, America! The deceivers the Bible speaks of are among us.
/
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
The "Reparations" Con
Reparations - forcing people who never sinned against you personally to pay money to those who were never personally sinned against. So, let's begin there...
First and foremost, it would do no substantial good - any money paid out would be spent, gone in 2 weeks, and nothing changes.
Next, it would bankrupt the national treasury - there are approximately 40 million blacks, and countless Native Americans - and that would only be the beginning. The cost to ADMINISTER reparations fairly would cost billions more, at least, and here is why...
For the first 150 years, most slaves in America were WHITE, often referred to as "indentured servants", or undesirables exiled to the New World. Do whites get reparations? And how do we track down their descendants?
3700 blacks owned black slaves - do we track down their heirs and force them to pay, also?
Native Americans held other tribes as slaves - how do we track who was who?
Tens of millions of white people in the U.S. are descended from people who emigrated to American AFTER slavery was abolished. Do all those families have to pay? And how do we sort those out?
Many Americans pre-Civil War never owned slaves - in fact, they fought and died to end slavery. Should THEIR heirs pay? And how to determine who they are? And giving up their lives to end slavery - was that not enough reparation?
And finally, what about all those people who have bloodlines from BOTH races? Do they pay themselves? Each other?
There is absolutely no way to determine who was wronged, and who wronged them, and even less possibility of finding all the heirs of each. To do any less, however, would be unfair, as it would pay many undeserving people, and cheat many who are innocent.
In spite of this, there are two (at least) Democrat presidential candidates - Warren and Harris - who are so ignorant of the issues, and so unable or unwilling to think it out (i.e. stupid) who have made reparations part of their policy platform. That, alone should disqualify them for the Presidency. Actually, it should disqualify them from any public office.
/
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Dems Try Boosting Base By Giving Illegals the Vote
Pelosi said it herself - we should welcome these people and insure they are not deprived of the right to vote. And today she took it further by putting forth a bill to give DACA people a path to citizenship, i.e. voting rights. Lest we forget, they ARE here illegally. And if given the right to vote, millions of them will vote Democrat as a "thank you", as blacks have done for generations.
Pelosi also knows that a "path to citizenship" for any illegal is a moving of the Overton Window, creating a slippery slope that will lead to citizenship for many millions of others. They will not stop at DACA people.
I am all for giving them legal residence, but NOT citizenship. Not ever! If we begin allowing people to benefit from citizenship by breaking our laws, our nation and our way of life is lost.
Pelosi also knows that a "path to citizenship" for any illegal is a moving of the Overton Window, creating a slippery slope that will lead to citizenship for many millions of others. They will not stop at DACA people.
I am all for giving them legal residence, but NOT citizenship. Not ever! If we begin allowing people to benefit from citizenship by breaking our laws, our nation and our way of life is lost.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Memory Loss - Can It Be Overcome?
Having reached old age, I find that certain memories are getting
difficult to bring forward when I want them. I see a movie star from the
40's or 50's whose name I know as well as my own, yet struggle to
recall it (though eventually I do). Or I get up from the couch to go to
the kitchen, and before getting there I have forgotten why I was going,
though eventually, and with a struggle I do recall the reason.
I have a theory, and if the theory is true we might be able to overcome much "memory loss". Because in cases like these, the memories are not really lost - eventually they can be brought to mind.
The brain is a powerful and complex "natural computer". And I think, like a computer, as it becomes cluttered with vast amounts of input, it becomes less efficient; slower, and could even crash. So when a person reaches their elder years, the brain has amassed a vast amount of input - every little thing you have ever heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or learned. The brain becomes a bit cluttered, and, in order to protect its host (us) it stores unnecessary memories "in the attic" much as a computer might compress files to make room for necessary functions. If there is no need to recall Burt Lancaster's name, it gets stored and becomes difficult to unlock.
OK, if this theory has any basis in fact, and the brain puts certain info into a storage unit, then all we should need is access to the storage area, on demand. A way to unlock the memory closet. A key.
I don't think there is any technology (yet) that is capable of doing that, but perhaps the brain, itself, can provide the answer. I can't help but wonder if we could use hypnosis to convince the brain to provide access to the "attic" by use of a "password", just like a computer. For example, under hypnosis it might be suggested that any time you have trouble recalling a name, event etc. that by consciously saying "eureka", or thinking of a specific image, such as a babbling brook, that the brain would recognize that as a key, allowing access to the dusty, cob-webbed attic
I am going to try and find a good hypnotist, and try it on myself. If anyone else who reads this should also try it, please let me know the results.
Of course, this all rests upon whether or not I REMEMBER to find a hypnotist...
I have a theory, and if the theory is true we might be able to overcome much "memory loss". Because in cases like these, the memories are not really lost - eventually they can be brought to mind.
The brain is a powerful and complex "natural computer". And I think, like a computer, as it becomes cluttered with vast amounts of input, it becomes less efficient; slower, and could even crash. So when a person reaches their elder years, the brain has amassed a vast amount of input - every little thing you have ever heard, seen, smelled, tasted, touched or learned. The brain becomes a bit cluttered, and, in order to protect its host (us) it stores unnecessary memories "in the attic" much as a computer might compress files to make room for necessary functions. If there is no need to recall Burt Lancaster's name, it gets stored and becomes difficult to unlock.
OK, if this theory has any basis in fact, and the brain puts certain info into a storage unit, then all we should need is access to the storage area, on demand. A way to unlock the memory closet. A key.
I don't think there is any technology (yet) that is capable of doing that, but perhaps the brain, itself, can provide the answer. I can't help but wonder if we could use hypnosis to convince the brain to provide access to the "attic" by use of a "password", just like a computer. For example, under hypnosis it might be suggested that any time you have trouble recalling a name, event etc. that by consciously saying "eureka", or thinking of a specific image, such as a babbling brook, that the brain would recognize that as a key, allowing access to the dusty, cob-webbed attic
I am going to try and find a good hypnotist, and try it on myself. If anyone else who reads this should also try it, please let me know the results.
Of course, this all rests upon whether or not I REMEMBER to find a hypnotist...
Constitutional Rights Are Not What You Think
Everywhere we go these days, whatever media we turn to, the conversation almost always comes back to this-or-that "Constitutional Right". And it never ceases to amaze at just how it is that so many people can be so ignorant about the very basis of American society. It seems they believe that our God-given rights, though given by God and protected by government, are somehow without limitations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every right comes with the responsibility to not ABUSE the right. The Founders who crafted, then signed the Bill of Rights did so with the presumption that people would, by nature, assume responsibility for them. They did not believe it necessary to point that out. But much has changed, and in this day and age a lot people aren't inclined to accept responsibility for very much (consider abortion as an example).
We have the right of free speech, yet we cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater (unless it really is on fire), nor can we libel, slander and defame with impunity. But Congress and liberal courts have made it harder to shut down those who will tell any lie in order to fulfill an agenda. Case in point: the so-called "Russian dossier". And while freedom of the press is designed to help the people keep those in power under some control by reporting the facts and truth, much of today's media no longer cares about facts or truth - all they care about is getting the "clicks", and pushing their own agenda even if it means creating "fake news", or giving only one side of a story. The press is supposed to be objective and unbiased. It's not even close to that.
Freedom of Religion has become a sad joke on Christians and Jews, the only sects that keep taking hits from the hard left, and even from our government. Even in Congress we now have anti-Semites and anti-Christians.
The right to assemble, i.e. protest is important, but it is being terribly abused by many on the left who use that as cover - a guise for their rioting and damaging of property. We have a responsibility to protest in a civil, peaceful manner. But that is not what we are seeing from those on the far left or far right.
We have the right to own and bear arms. But with that right comes the responsibility to use them safely, and only as necessary, to either hunt for food, defend life and property, or for other sporting events that include shooting. We do NOT have the right to use guns to murder others, or to rob banks.
Yes, we have rights. But they are not unlimited in scope. Nor can the government infringe on them, legally, though they keep trying because so many people insist on abusing them. And in cases such as the rioting and violence of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, the media turns them into heroes.
We, The People need to begin recognizing and accepting the responsibility that comes with our God-given rights. If we fail to do so, we will lose them!
/
Every right comes with the responsibility to not ABUSE the right. The Founders who crafted, then signed the Bill of Rights did so with the presumption that people would, by nature, assume responsibility for them. They did not believe it necessary to point that out. But much has changed, and in this day and age a lot people aren't inclined to accept responsibility for very much (consider abortion as an example).
We have the right of free speech, yet we cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater (unless it really is on fire), nor can we libel, slander and defame with impunity. But Congress and liberal courts have made it harder to shut down those who will tell any lie in order to fulfill an agenda. Case in point: the so-called "Russian dossier". And while freedom of the press is designed to help the people keep those in power under some control by reporting the facts and truth, much of today's media no longer cares about facts or truth - all they care about is getting the "clicks", and pushing their own agenda even if it means creating "fake news", or giving only one side of a story. The press is supposed to be objective and unbiased. It's not even close to that.
Freedom of Religion has become a sad joke on Christians and Jews, the only sects that keep taking hits from the hard left, and even from our government. Even in Congress we now have anti-Semites and anti-Christians.
The right to assemble, i.e. protest is important, but it is being terribly abused by many on the left who use that as cover - a guise for their rioting and damaging of property. We have a responsibility to protest in a civil, peaceful manner. But that is not what we are seeing from those on the far left or far right.
We have the right to own and bear arms. But with that right comes the responsibility to use them safely, and only as necessary, to either hunt for food, defend life and property, or for other sporting events that include shooting. We do NOT have the right to use guns to murder others, or to rob banks.
Yes, we have rights. But they are not unlimited in scope. Nor can the government infringe on them, legally, though they keep trying because so many people insist on abusing them. And in cases such as the rioting and violence of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, the media turns them into heroes.
We, The People need to begin recognizing and accepting the responsibility that comes with our God-given rights. If we fail to do so, we will lose them!
/
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Prison For Illegals Who Vote
Here are a couple of sensible immigration laws that Congress should (but won't) pass...
1) Any non-resident of the United States who is found guilty of voting in any U.S. election for any federal office SHALL be imprisoned for a minimum of 3 years for a first offense, and upon completion of said sentence, SHALL immediately be deported [this will do a lot to discourage them from being persuaded by Democrats to vote]
2) Any foreign national not a citizen of the United States that seeks asylum protection in the U.S. must apply PRIOR to entering the U.S. and provide COMPELLING evidence that they are being persecuted in their own country on political or religious grounds, or be deported immediately. Any foreign national that is not a citizen of Mexico or Canada (contiguous nations) must apply for asylum in the first country they come to that is not their own country.
3) Children born in U.S jurisdiction of two illegal immigrant parents shall not be deemed citizens - citing "fruit of the poisoned tree". This shall not apply to children born when at least one parent is a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. whose parents are visiting the U.S. under a visa or other legal instrument shall not be deemed as citizens, except when said parents shall become naturalized citizens, at which point so shall their minor children
4) Any illegal immigrant legally deported, who then returns shall be imprisoned not less than 2 years then immediately deported, and any illegal immigrant who returns more than once shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years then immediately deported. In either case, there shall be no requirement of due process, as they already had their day in court when deported the first time.
1) Any non-resident of the United States who is found guilty of voting in any U.S. election for any federal office SHALL be imprisoned for a minimum of 3 years for a first offense, and upon completion of said sentence, SHALL immediately be deported [this will do a lot to discourage them from being persuaded by Democrats to vote]
2) Any foreign national not a citizen of the United States that seeks asylum protection in the U.S. must apply PRIOR to entering the U.S. and provide COMPELLING evidence that they are being persecuted in their own country on political or religious grounds, or be deported immediately. Any foreign national that is not a citizen of Mexico or Canada (contiguous nations) must apply for asylum in the first country they come to that is not their own country.
3) Children born in U.S jurisdiction of two illegal immigrant parents shall not be deemed citizens - citing "fruit of the poisoned tree". This shall not apply to children born when at least one parent is a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. whose parents are visiting the U.S. under a visa or other legal instrument shall not be deemed as citizens, except when said parents shall become naturalized citizens, at which point so shall their minor children
4) Any illegal immigrant legally deported, who then returns shall be imprisoned not less than 2 years then immediately deported, and any illegal immigrant who returns more than once shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years then immediately deported. In either case, there shall be no requirement of due process, as they already had their day in court when deported the first time.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Kids Sue Government Over Climate Change
A number of parents have decided to use their children to sue the U.S. government for "not protecting them from the future damage of climate change". The entire premise is absurd, and no legitimate court would even hear this case, and here are just some of the reasons why...
1) A lawsuit cannot be initiated based on a FUTURE event that may or may not happen
2) There is no guarantee that any climate change will cause those kids any real harm, personally
3) There is no Constitutional right that says the government is responsible for protecting us from the climate, or any natural occurrence
But most important - regardless of any so-called consensus of "scientists", there is no real proof that climate change, if and when it occurs, will have any substantial effect - the climate is ALWAYS changing, and for 87% of the 4.5 billion years Earth has been around, the average mean temperature has been roughly 4 degrees warmer than it is now - any warming is a NATURAL event, and one that Mankind has no power to prevent, short of causing a nuclear winter.
Furthermore, it is possible the climate could suddenly and without warning go in the direction of cooling, which it has done thousands of times in history. Our sun has warm and cool periods. Solar flares can warm things up. volcanoes and super volcanoes can cause an immediate ice age, as can a meteorite strike. In the 13th century the Earth entered what is known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) which did not "end" until the mid 19th century. We are still coming out of that.
In short, lawsuits cannot be initiated based on something that has not even happened, may not happen, and for which the defendant has no means to change, avoid, nor has any responsibility for doing so.
Any attorney who enters such a lawsuit should be disbarred - it is illegal to present frivolous lawsuits.
/
1) A lawsuit cannot be initiated based on a FUTURE event that may or may not happen
2) There is no guarantee that any climate change will cause those kids any real harm, personally
3) There is no Constitutional right that says the government is responsible for protecting us from the climate, or any natural occurrence
But most important - regardless of any so-called consensus of "scientists", there is no real proof that climate change, if and when it occurs, will have any substantial effect - the climate is ALWAYS changing, and for 87% of the 4.5 billion years Earth has been around, the average mean temperature has been roughly 4 degrees warmer than it is now - any warming is a NATURAL event, and one that Mankind has no power to prevent, short of causing a nuclear winter.
Furthermore, it is possible the climate could suddenly and without warning go in the direction of cooling, which it has done thousands of times in history. Our sun has warm and cool periods. Solar flares can warm things up. volcanoes and super volcanoes can cause an immediate ice age, as can a meteorite strike. In the 13th century the Earth entered what is known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) which did not "end" until the mid 19th century. We are still coming out of that.
In short, lawsuits cannot be initiated based on something that has not even happened, may not happen, and for which the defendant has no means to change, avoid, nor has any responsibility for doing so.
Any attorney who enters such a lawsuit should be disbarred - it is illegal to present frivolous lawsuits.
/
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Just What Is DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM?
We're hearing a lot from the (uninformed) left about "Democratic Socialism", but none of them seem able (or willing) to tell us what, exactly, that is.
Let's start with a simple fact - socialism and democracy are diametrically opposed. In a democracy, the people have the power and they rule themselves. In socialism, the government has the power and rules the people. That is the very basis of both. With that in mind, we must therefore assume that "democratic socialism" must be a little of both - the people rule in some things, and the government rules in others.
But here are the problems with that...
1) Those on the left are stating clearly that they want the government to rule in all the IMPORTANT facets of our life, such as our health care, and the people get to rule in things that have little or no importance at all - pretty much nothing. And that is because of...
2) The slippery slope. By taking over health care, the government now has the right to "protect our health interests", which means they can tell us what we can and cannot eat, and what lifestyle choices we must adhere to (or abandon), all in the name of keeping health care costs down. Remember DiBlasio's law against the "Big Gulp" soda?
And it gets worse. The playbook for radical liberals is Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals". It presumes a "long game", and follows the rule of the "Overton Window". In simple terms, the Overton Window is a method of incrementally moving the goal post until you get to what you want. For example, radicals want all drugs to be legalized. They know they cannot get a majority to support that, so they begin by getting the public to accept that there are medicinal benefits to weed, and marijuana should be allow for medicinal purposes. It was a slog, but they managed to slowly get majority support. Then they moved on to "recreational use". Since weed has already been put into the mainstream of medicine, they are now getting majority support for recreational use. as people are getting tired of fighting it. As more and more people grow accustomed to the use of weed in our society, it becomes easier to make it legal. And now they are working to make cocaine legal...
They did the same with abortion. It was supposed to be "rare", and only in the first trimester. Once that became a societal norm, they pushed it through the second trimester. And then the third. And now, as was promoted by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, some states are now trying to "legalize" infanticide, by allowing babies already born to be murdered. What's next - killing off those who cannot contribute to society? The elderly mom and dad? The disabled?
That is the Overton Window in action. And they are using it for all sorts of things - health care goes from "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to "Medicare for all", with no choices of any kind. And gun control - they want to ban and confiscate all guns, so they begin with a minor change like Universal background checks, which ALL experts say cannot be enforced unless we have gun REGISRATION - so guess what comes next? And what comes after that?
And then there's "sanctuary cities", the purpose of which was supposed to only protect illegals from being victimized by not detaining them if they filed complaints as victims. Now look at them!
To get back to the point, once socialism gets a foothold in America by way of "socialism lite" (Democratic Socialism), the slippery slope will require we slide into true socialism. I say "require" because if we have medicare for all, for example, the costs would then need to be contained. To do that, the government MUST start choosing our foods for us, and dictate our lifestyles. There would be no choice. Socialism is like a cancer on society - it grows! The Overton Window wins the game for the radicals among us. And America is no more.
Democratic Socialism, an oxymoron in its own right, cannot exist. As Jesus so clearly pointed out, "No man can serve two masters". And the radicals fully understand that, and know full well that "socialism light" is nothing less than a foot in the door - or shall I say, a foot in the Overton Window.
Each of us, today, has a choice. If your choice is to protect America from the dangers of socialism, take a moment to share this post everywhere you can. It is time to do something besides complain.
/
Let's start with a simple fact - socialism and democracy are diametrically opposed. In a democracy, the people have the power and they rule themselves. In socialism, the government has the power and rules the people. That is the very basis of both. With that in mind, we must therefore assume that "democratic socialism" must be a little of both - the people rule in some things, and the government rules in others.
But here are the problems with that...
1) Those on the left are stating clearly that they want the government to rule in all the IMPORTANT facets of our life, such as our health care, and the people get to rule in things that have little or no importance at all - pretty much nothing. And that is because of...
2) The slippery slope. By taking over health care, the government now has the right to "protect our health interests", which means they can tell us what we can and cannot eat, and what lifestyle choices we must adhere to (or abandon), all in the name of keeping health care costs down. Remember DiBlasio's law against the "Big Gulp" soda?
And it gets worse. The playbook for radical liberals is Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals". It presumes a "long game", and follows the rule of the "Overton Window". In simple terms, the Overton Window is a method of incrementally moving the goal post until you get to what you want. For example, radicals want all drugs to be legalized. They know they cannot get a majority to support that, so they begin by getting the public to accept that there are medicinal benefits to weed, and marijuana should be allow for medicinal purposes. It was a slog, but they managed to slowly get majority support. Then they moved on to "recreational use". Since weed has already been put into the mainstream of medicine, they are now getting majority support for recreational use. as people are getting tired of fighting it. As more and more people grow accustomed to the use of weed in our society, it becomes easier to make it legal. And now they are working to make cocaine legal...
They did the same with abortion. It was supposed to be "rare", and only in the first trimester. Once that became a societal norm, they pushed it through the second trimester. And then the third. And now, as was promoted by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, some states are now trying to "legalize" infanticide, by allowing babies already born to be murdered. What's next - killing off those who cannot contribute to society? The elderly mom and dad? The disabled?
That is the Overton Window in action. And they are using it for all sorts of things - health care goes from "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to "Medicare for all", with no choices of any kind. And gun control - they want to ban and confiscate all guns, so they begin with a minor change like Universal background checks, which ALL experts say cannot be enforced unless we have gun REGISRATION - so guess what comes next? And what comes after that?
And then there's "sanctuary cities", the purpose of which was supposed to only protect illegals from being victimized by not detaining them if they filed complaints as victims. Now look at them!
To get back to the point, once socialism gets a foothold in America by way of "socialism lite" (Democratic Socialism), the slippery slope will require we slide into true socialism. I say "require" because if we have medicare for all, for example, the costs would then need to be contained. To do that, the government MUST start choosing our foods for us, and dictate our lifestyles. There would be no choice. Socialism is like a cancer on society - it grows! The Overton Window wins the game for the radicals among us. And America is no more.
Democratic Socialism, an oxymoron in its own right, cannot exist. As Jesus so clearly pointed out, "No man can serve two masters". And the radicals fully understand that, and know full well that "socialism light" is nothing less than a foot in the door - or shall I say, a foot in the Overton Window.
Each of us, today, has a choice. If your choice is to protect America from the dangers of socialism, take a moment to share this post everywhere you can. It is time to do something besides complain.
/
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Whites Deserve Reparation for Slavery
The new platform of the Democrats running for president includes the great "reparations" con. For the first 140 years, the vast majority of slaves in America were WHITE. Blacks were not imported until the mid-1700's. These white slaves consisted of:
* The Redemptioners, Germans whose family members were frequently sold to different masters
* Indentured Servants, promised a better life in the New World - which never
* Poor people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children, kidnapped and sent to the colonies under the Royal policy of "POOR RELIEF". These were the poor and vagrants (Men, Women, Children) of the United Kingdom
* Loose or lewd women (prostitutes) that wealthy, moralist Europeans & the UK wanted gone
* Convicts and criminals. Maryland and Virginia were convicts’ states
* War prisoners, mostly Irish & Scottish-Irish and Scottish ( Monmouth Rebels , Covenanters etc). This was known as the “Irish slave trade” that history books seem to overlook
It was not until there was a shortage of white slaves in the mid-1700's to meet demand that the black slave trade began, and blacks were kidnapped in large numbers from Africa. Blacks were the predominant slaves for just 120 years.
I am white. I want reparation for the slavery of my race...
But there is an even greater issue - if reparations are warranted because of past mistreatment, what about Native Americans? And the Chinese that were imported after we ended slavery, and who were treated as slaves by the railroad builders and mine owners (not to mention digging our canals)? And the Irish were also mistreated, as well as the Japanese in the interment camps.
In fact, there is no group of people in the world who have not at some point been sorely mistreated and abused by other groups. The reason liberals want reparations is simply because of the race to socialism - Saul Alinsky, in his book, "Rules for Radicals" includes this first rule for destroying a government so you can get the people willing to accept the "help" offered by socialism: you must first BANKRUPT the country. That is the reason Democrats are all-in for wasting as much money as possible - giving $150 billion to Iran; mega-millions to solar companies that took the money and went bust. I can list at least 200 examples. And "reparations" are just the newest way to drain the treasury.
Actually, no one deserves reparation for slavery. There is not a black living that experienced slavery in America, nor a white American who ever owned a black slave. More to the point, the black community who are descendants of slaves should be thankful for slavery - if not for the slave trade, they would most likely still be living in a 3rd world county in abject poverty instead of opportunity laden, free America.
* The Redemptioners, Germans whose family members were frequently sold to different masters
* Indentured Servants, promised a better life in the New World - which never
* Poor people of London, Bristol and Liverpool (Men, Women, Children, kidnapped and sent to the colonies under the Royal policy of "POOR RELIEF". These were the poor and vagrants (Men, Women, Children) of the United Kingdom
* Loose or lewd women (prostitutes) that wealthy, moralist Europeans & the UK wanted gone
* Convicts and criminals. Maryland and Virginia were convicts’ states
* War prisoners, mostly Irish & Scottish-Irish and Scottish ( Monmouth Rebels , Covenanters etc). This was known as the “Irish slave trade” that history books seem to overlook
It was not until there was a shortage of white slaves in the mid-1700's to meet demand that the black slave trade began, and blacks were kidnapped in large numbers from Africa. Blacks were the predominant slaves for just 120 years.
I am white. I want reparation for the slavery of my race...
But there is an even greater issue - if reparations are warranted because of past mistreatment, what about Native Americans? And the Chinese that were imported after we ended slavery, and who were treated as slaves by the railroad builders and mine owners (not to mention digging our canals)? And the Irish were also mistreated, as well as the Japanese in the interment camps.
In fact, there is no group of people in the world who have not at some point been sorely mistreated and abused by other groups. The reason liberals want reparations is simply because of the race to socialism - Saul Alinsky, in his book, "Rules for Radicals" includes this first rule for destroying a government so you can get the people willing to accept the "help" offered by socialism: you must first BANKRUPT the country. That is the reason Democrats are all-in for wasting as much money as possible - giving $150 billion to Iran; mega-millions to solar companies that took the money and went bust. I can list at least 200 examples. And "reparations" are just the newest way to drain the treasury.
Actually, no one deserves reparation for slavery. There is not a black living that experienced slavery in America, nor a white American who ever owned a black slave. More to the point, the black community who are descendants of slaves should be thankful for slavery - if not for the slave trade, they would most likely still be living in a 3rd world county in abject poverty instead of opportunity laden, free America.
Friday, February 15, 2019
The Real Reason Average Tax Refunds Are Smaller In 2019
Certain Democrats, especially among the presidential candidates, are using the IRS report that the average refund is smaller this year to con the uninformed into thinking - and they say this - that Trump's tax cuts are obviously a tax HIKE.
Those Democrats are either uneducated and simply can't add one and one, or they are intentionally trying to deceive the masses who do not understand simple economics.
When taxes are cut, employers deduct less withholding from paychecks. Instead of sending the IRS $100 a week out of your check, they only send $85 a week, because taxes were cut. And when they SEND less, you get less BACK. The refund is nothing more than the amount you OVERPAID, and is actually proof of the tax cuts. As an extreme example, if taxes were eliminated, your employer would withhold nothing, so you would get nothing back.
But Democrats prefer to use trickery and deceit to con people into believing something that simply is not true. They use this tactic constantly - like, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", and "your health care costs will go down $2500/year".
/
Those Democrats are either uneducated and simply can't add one and one, or they are intentionally trying to deceive the masses who do not understand simple economics.
When taxes are cut, employers deduct less withholding from paychecks. Instead of sending the IRS $100 a week out of your check, they only send $85 a week, because taxes were cut. And when they SEND less, you get less BACK. The refund is nothing more than the amount you OVERPAID, and is actually proof of the tax cuts. As an extreme example, if taxes were eliminated, your employer would withhold nothing, so you would get nothing back.
But Democrats prefer to use trickery and deceit to con people into believing something that simply is not true. They use this tactic constantly - like, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", and "your health care costs will go down $2500/year".
/
Friday, February 8, 2019
A Virginian Speaks Out On "Blackface"
Disclosure: I am a Virginian, and a conservative with libertarian leanings in some things. And given my "druthers", I would rather have Republicans running things. That said, I feel the need to take a stand on the political debacle now transpiring in my state. I don't expect everyone to agree with my "take", but I do hope everyone would at least think about it.
As to the "black-face" controversy, I do not believe it should even be a controversy, except by those who LOOK for controversy and victimization. When I see that picture of two young men dressed as a black dude and a Klansman, and the "black-face" dude is obviously smiling, I do not see racism - I see two people who are MOCKING racism. And when I see a picture of someone wearing blackface to "dress-up" as a rapper, again I see no racism - I see someone who, in his own inept way, is honoring rap
.
My point here - wearing blackface is not a crime, and more to the point needs to be viewed in context. As I see it, it's like "Taco Night" at the college. The kids dress up in Mexican garb and pig out on Mexican food. Now, there are two ways to view that. If you are a whiner (and this actually happened) who feeds on victimization, you might view it as "appropriating someone else's culture" and get it shut it down. Setting aside for the moment that there is nothing wrong with "appropriating culture", a clear-headed thinking person who doesn't waste time looking for things to complain about would see Taco Night as a CELEBRATION of another culture. America, the "melting pot", has ALWAYS "appropriated" worthwhile pieces of other cultures - tacos, pizza, even some of their words, like "Adios", or "sayanara". That is how we come together as one. And that's a GOOD thing.
So, as to those who have worn blackface, I say, "So what". Who has not done questionable things in their past? I know I have done my share. It does not by any stretch of the imagination make a person racist. But if you are the type who believes in finding racism wherever you can, then maybe you should take a chill pill and think about how millions of white people spend mega-hours each year trying to get a great tan. Is THAT racist, too? I say to people who look for trouble that they will find it, and I hope it bites them in the butt!
As for the other guy, who has had two women allege sexual assault, make no mistake - if true, he should be in prison. Which begs the question - the statute of limitations is not up, so exactly WHY are they not bringing criminal charges? Frankly, I believe he did it. But what anyone "believes" actually has nothing to do with anything. People can be wrong. And that is why the Constitution requires due process, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Oust him if you wish - but only after the evidence is in and proves him guilty. In America, we don't punish people until we know they are guilty. So, prove him guilty, or leave him be.
And as for impeaching the Lt Governor, though I would like to see that, forget it. Under the Virginia Constitution (which the delegate trying to impeach him should have at least read), impeachment can only be for crimes committed while in office. These crimes, if they occurred at all, happened long before he was in office.
That brings me to the one, serious issue I DO have that I believe should cost the governor his job - his readiness to allow infanticide, and support it. Under all current laws, that is murder. Anyone who supports the murder of ANY individual is a person I do not want governing my state. And in this case, the proof is already in sight - he stated on camera that even AFTER birth, a mother and her doctor can decide if they want to kill the newborn or let it live. Once a baby leaves the womb, it is a citizen, endowed with and protected by the rights under the constitution.
Northam needs to go because of that, alone. Blackface means nothing to sane people who are not looking for some way to hurt other people.
And that's my take, for what it's worth.
As to the "black-face" controversy, I do not believe it should even be a controversy, except by those who LOOK for controversy and victimization. When I see that picture of two young men dressed as a black dude and a Klansman, and the "black-face" dude is obviously smiling, I do not see racism - I see two people who are MOCKING racism. And when I see a picture of someone wearing blackface to "dress-up" as a rapper, again I see no racism - I see someone who, in his own inept way, is honoring rap
.
My point here - wearing blackface is not a crime, and more to the point needs to be viewed in context. As I see it, it's like "Taco Night" at the college. The kids dress up in Mexican garb and pig out on Mexican food. Now, there are two ways to view that. If you are a whiner (and this actually happened) who feeds on victimization, you might view it as "appropriating someone else's culture" and get it shut it down. Setting aside for the moment that there is nothing wrong with "appropriating culture", a clear-headed thinking person who doesn't waste time looking for things to complain about would see Taco Night as a CELEBRATION of another culture. America, the "melting pot", has ALWAYS "appropriated" worthwhile pieces of other cultures - tacos, pizza, even some of their words, like "Adios", or "sayanara". That is how we come together as one. And that's a GOOD thing.
So, as to those who have worn blackface, I say, "So what". Who has not done questionable things in their past? I know I have done my share. It does not by any stretch of the imagination make a person racist. But if you are the type who believes in finding racism wherever you can, then maybe you should take a chill pill and think about how millions of white people spend mega-hours each year trying to get a great tan. Is THAT racist, too? I say to people who look for trouble that they will find it, and I hope it bites them in the butt!
As for the other guy, who has had two women allege sexual assault, make no mistake - if true, he should be in prison. Which begs the question - the statute of limitations is not up, so exactly WHY are they not bringing criminal charges? Frankly, I believe he did it. But what anyone "believes" actually has nothing to do with anything. People can be wrong. And that is why the Constitution requires due process, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Oust him if you wish - but only after the evidence is in and proves him guilty. In America, we don't punish people until we know they are guilty. So, prove him guilty, or leave him be.
And as for impeaching the Lt Governor, though I would like to see that, forget it. Under the Virginia Constitution (which the delegate trying to impeach him should have at least read), impeachment can only be for crimes committed while in office. These crimes, if they occurred at all, happened long before he was in office.
That brings me to the one, serious issue I DO have that I believe should cost the governor his job - his readiness to allow infanticide, and support it. Under all current laws, that is murder. Anyone who supports the murder of ANY individual is a person I do not want governing my state. And in this case, the proof is already in sight - he stated on camera that even AFTER birth, a mother and her doctor can decide if they want to kill the newborn or let it live. Once a baby leaves the womb, it is a citizen, endowed with and protected by the rights under the constitution.
Northam needs to go because of that, alone. Blackface means nothing to sane people who are not looking for some way to hurt other people.
And that's my take, for what it's worth.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Afghanistan - Why We Must Withdraw
Over the last two centuries powerful nations have tried to civilize and rule Afghanistan, to bring it under control.
In the 1830's it was the powerful British Empire, in their quest to protect their interests in India. This resulted in the First Anglo-Afghan War which then resulted in the British being driven out and the British Army massacred, leaving but one survivor.
The Second Anglo-Afghan debacle began in 1878 when the British again invaded Afghanistan. By 1880, they were again driven out in shame.
In 1919 the British once again declared war on Afghanistan in what is known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War. And three months later they again lost.
In 1979 the Soviets (Russians) invaded Afghanistan, joining in the Afghan War (1978-1992). They remained until 1989. After suffering unheard of losses in blood and treasure, and with 15,000 dead in the quagmire, the Russians withdrew from the tiny country that has been the nemisis of powerful natiuons since time immemorial. This was Russia's Viet-Nam.
And now America, in 2001, invaded Afghanistan. Eighteen years later we are still losing blood and treasure, having made little real difference - the Afghans are still tribal, uncivilized and with a deep hatred of what civilized nations hold dear - democracy.
It would not be far-fetched to call our efforts in Afghanistan America's Second Viet-Nam.
And through it all, the powerful nations have learned nothing. You may get a wild lion to capitulate to the whip in a circus, but he will still kill and eat you if he gets the chance. That can never change.
And now, under Trump, we are withdrawing most of our troops, leaving only enough to hopefully prevent the resurgence of those who want to do harm to us in our homeland.
And to the thinking mind, the Washington Post's assertion that Trump's policy to withdraw is somehow "bizarre" and wrong is simply dumb. Unlike the reporters at the Post, living in luxury in the states and not in fear of being maimed or killed for naught, Trump learns from history. He understands that no matter how many lives are lost, and now matter how many trillions it costs, there is no taming Afghanistan. Hence, we should not be investing so unwisely.
/
In the 1830's it was the powerful British Empire, in their quest to protect their interests in India. This resulted in the First Anglo-Afghan War which then resulted in the British being driven out and the British Army massacred, leaving but one survivor.
The Second Anglo-Afghan debacle began in 1878 when the British again invaded Afghanistan. By 1880, they were again driven out in shame.
In 1919 the British once again declared war on Afghanistan in what is known as the Third Anglo-Afghan War. And three months later they again lost.
In 1979 the Soviets (Russians) invaded Afghanistan, joining in the Afghan War (1978-1992). They remained until 1989. After suffering unheard of losses in blood and treasure, and with 15,000 dead in the quagmire, the Russians withdrew from the tiny country that has been the nemisis of powerful natiuons since time immemorial. This was Russia's Viet-Nam.
And now America, in 2001, invaded Afghanistan. Eighteen years later we are still losing blood and treasure, having made little real difference - the Afghans are still tribal, uncivilized and with a deep hatred of what civilized nations hold dear - democracy.
It would not be far-fetched to call our efforts in Afghanistan America's Second Viet-Nam.
And through it all, the powerful nations have learned nothing. You may get a wild lion to capitulate to the whip in a circus, but he will still kill and eat you if he gets the chance. That can never change.
And now, under Trump, we are withdrawing most of our troops, leaving only enough to hopefully prevent the resurgence of those who want to do harm to us in our homeland.
And to the thinking mind, the Washington Post's assertion that Trump's policy to withdraw is somehow "bizarre" and wrong is simply dumb. Unlike the reporters at the Post, living in luxury in the states and not in fear of being maimed or killed for naught, Trump learns from history. He understands that no matter how many lives are lost, and now matter how many trillions it costs, there is no taming Afghanistan. Hence, we should not be investing so unwisely.
/
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
"Medicare For All" - The REAL Issues
It sounds great - the government will pay for one of the most costly expenses we have. No more worries!
The main problem is simple - no matter how you slice it, we cannot afford it. Here are some reasons it simply cannot work and how it would devastate the health care system:
1) Even if we taxed billionaires AND millionaires at a full 100% it would not even come close to paying the $3 trillion plus tab each year, and growing yearly
2) Medicare only pays about 1/3 of actual costs - hospitals, doctors, clinincs etc. count on the private insurance policies to pick up the difference, which is what drives up the cost of insurance. Under Medicare For All, the insurance companies will be gone. This results in either hospitals and doctors going bust, leaving us without care, or the government would have to up the minimums they pay, resulting in higher taxes for us all
3) Medicare For All would result in much heavier burdens on the health care services. If you think it's bad to wait weeks for an appointment, or 8 hours waiting in the waiting room, just wait until tens of millions more people are trying to cut in for every little hangnail or wart.
I am truly amazed that our lawmakers are ignoring the REAL ways we can make health care not only better and more efficient, but less costly, as well. I have posted those things several times, and it does not take a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure it out. For those who missed it...
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. They have to, in order to make up the difference for the discounting of costs by Medicare and self-payers (uninsured). Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried.science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. We don't need a go-between to speak with God, so we should not need one to see a specialist.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into the R&D. But they often profit TOO much. They can often find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, and can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug, regardless of what is is used for. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so could the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing the R & D, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or cover new tax deductions on the purchase of any exercise equipment or athletic gear, to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected would be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
The main problem is simple - no matter how you slice it, we cannot afford it. Here are some reasons it simply cannot work and how it would devastate the health care system:
1) Even if we taxed billionaires AND millionaires at a full 100% it would not even come close to paying the $3 trillion plus tab each year, and growing yearly
2) Medicare only pays about 1/3 of actual costs - hospitals, doctors, clinincs etc. count on the private insurance policies to pick up the difference, which is what drives up the cost of insurance. Under Medicare For All, the insurance companies will be gone. This results in either hospitals and doctors going bust, leaving us without care, or the government would have to up the minimums they pay, resulting in higher taxes for us all
3) Medicare For All would result in much heavier burdens on the health care services. If you think it's bad to wait weeks for an appointment, or 8 hours waiting in the waiting room, just wait until tens of millions more people are trying to cut in for every little hangnail or wart.
I am truly amazed that our lawmakers are ignoring the REAL ways we can make health care not only better and more efficient, but less costly, as well. I have posted those things several times, and it does not take a brain surgeon (pardon the pun) to figure it out. For those who missed it...
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. They have to, in order to make up the difference for the discounting of costs by Medicare and self-payers (uninsured). Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried.science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. We don't need a go-between to speak with God, so we should not need one to see a specialist.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into the R&D. But they often profit TOO much. They can often find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, and can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug, regardless of what is is used for. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so could the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing the R & D, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or cover new tax deductions on the purchase of any exercise equipment or athletic gear, to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected would be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Entire Populations of 2 Large Nations Aborted
Since Roe vs Wade in '73 there have been almost as many abortions as the entire combined populations of Canada and Australia. Over 58 million. And of those, the average pair of adults would have spawned at least 2.3 children (another 60 million never to be born), and many grand-children. I wonder how many of those would object if only they could.
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
It is estimated that 4% of a population would, in their lifetimes, make substantial contributions to society, such as Jonas Salk, MLK Jr, Thomas Edison. This means we have lost over 4 million important contributions since 1973. Perhaps even a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer.
And I wonder how many pro-choice people would volunteer to go back into the womb and take their chances at not being born. It is so easy to stand for something like war or abortion when your own life is not the one at risk. But what if it were?
What if the shoe were on the other foot? If SCOTUS determines that ANY inconvenient life could be ended at the behest of another? Too old? Too disabled? To Republican? Too white?
Don't laugh - it has already started. Some insurance companies in some states are already refusing to pay for expensive long-term care, but tell relatives they WILL pay for assisted suicide, saving both the family and the insurer a lot of money. The alternative is bankruptcy for the family saddled with the cost of care.
When Roe was passed, the court stated that abortion should be decriminalized, but should be safe, legal and rare. Frankly, 58 million is not "rare"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)