Jer's Notes

Letter to friend September 2, 2021

2026-09-11T10:42:47.104-04:00

As always I very much respect your opinion and wisdom on nearly everything you discuss. In regards to the covid vaccines I respect your choices and wish you nothing but the best with those choices.

I, however, have done a large amount of alternative research on the matter and do not see it your way. I think it is at least possible, indeed probable, that this vaccine is far more dangerous, in the long run, than the virus itself. Not just from a freedom standpoint, but far worse from a medical standpoint. I believe that over time these vaccines and the coming booster shots will seriously diminish human life expectancy.

Do some research on the spike proteins which the vaccines produce. They are meant to "program" our immune systems to fight the covid virus. The spike protein is the dangerous part of the covid, it is what causes the illness, it is toxic to our body. If the introduced spike protein remains in our body it does us harm. The "science" says that the vaccine induced spike proteins dissipate over a short period, they are just there to "instruct" our immune system so that it will fight them when they are introduced to our system via covid.

Even if all this works as theorized, the questions remains, what does man made introduction of a toxin into our system do long term? And how does our body expel these spike proteins (toxins). The answer to the second portion is known, our bodies "shed" these and infect the unvaccinated. The vaccinated are infecting the unvaccinated. Pretty neat trick there huh? But the larger question is what are the long term affects of this treatment on the human body, the continuous introduction of a genetic code which creates a toxin?

If the vaccine truly worked our immune system would "learn" to fight the covid generated spike proteins and that would be great. But you have to ask yourself this, if it worked as advertised and theorized, why the boosters? Why does our body, our immune system need to be taught again and again what the vaccine was designed to teach it from the beginning.

The reason the two FDA officials in charge of vaccine approval resigned (retired) is due to the unheard of never before approval of booster shots without studies being conducted on a vaccine that was not properly vetted and studied by the FDA in the first place.

Just thought you might want to know some of this, if not oh well it is in God's hands anyway.

Your Friend always
Jer

Which One?

2025-12-13T19:19:00.005-05:00

At the beginning of his letter to the Galatians, Paul expresses profound dismay that some Jewish Christians—often called "Judaizers"—have infiltrated the churches he founded there. These influencers were urging Gentile converts to observe certain Jewish traditions, such as circumcision and dietary laws, as essential requirements for true Christian faith. This added legalistic burdens to the pure gospel of grace Paul had proclaimed.

Here is what he writes:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (KJ21, Galatians 1:6–8)

Webster's Dictionary defines "accursed" as "being under or as if under a curse." Most Bible versions use this translation, but not all. What Paul actually wrote was the Greek term anathema, which some translations retain (often with a footnote for explanation). Anathema carries nuance: it denotes something or someone set apart under a curse, but in the early church—possibly influenced by this very passage—it evolved to signify formal denunciation or even excommunication.

Remember, the offending parties here were fellow believers in this fledgling movement (not yet widely called "Christianity"). They trusted in God and affirmed Christ as Savior, yet they sought to reimpose elements of the Mosaic Law on Paul's teaching of God's free gift of grace. One can hardly view them as malicious; in modern terms, they might simply represent a different denomination or interpretive tradition. They were still part of the family of faith, still fellow Christians.

Not all Bible translations extend Christian charity to these figures, however. Consider the Amplified Bible's translation:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we [originally] preached to you, let him be condemned to destruction! (AMP, Galatians 1:8)

Talk about amplified, this is a serious escalation, but others go further still. Several modern versions adopt a more inflammatory tone, such as the alleged GOD'S WORD Translation:

But what some people are calling good news is not really good news at all. They are confusing you. They want to distort the Good News about Christ. Whoever tells you good news that is different from the Good News we gave you should be condemned to hell, even if he is one of us or an angel from heaven.
(GW, Galatians 1:6-8)

So much for the "Good News."

Somewhere in Christianity's long march through history, Bible translators reached a point where it became acceptable to transform anathema into "condemned to hell" and casually toss theological opponents there. Did it never occur to the editors of these "holy" words that this veers far from Paul's intent? His rebuke was to protect the gospel's liberating core, not to hurl eternal damnation.

In truth, this could not have been Paul's meaning, for two reasons: first, anathema does not equate to "hell"; second, the concept of "hell" as a fiery underworld punishment had not yet fully crystallized in Jewish or early Christian thought during Paul's time. The English word "hell" itself did not enter the language until around the seventh century AD and did not gain widespread use until the King James Bible in the sixteenth century. Even the KJV translators refrained from stretching anathema all the way to hell—I guess that required further spiritual growth.

For those who hold the Bible as the infallible Word of God, I would only ask: Which one? If translations diverge so sharply on such a pivotal passage, how do we find guidance to establish a true theological and spiritual bearing?

Such is the confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (CSB, 2 Corinthians 3:4–6)

This contrast between "letter" (law) and "Spirit" (grace) is still present in the interpretation of the New Covenant which God established whether men understand or not. False translations can never be a pathway to the truth and can only be a a device to lead us astray whether intentionally or through ignorance.

Grace rules supreme in God's Kingdom and it should also in our interpretations of the words left to us to live by and the doctrines established to guide us. Christianity is nothing if it is not about truth, because God is true though every man a liar. at least that is what the Bible and God's Spirit within me says.

A Bible Story Prologue

2025-11-03T20:22:00.002-05:00

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.(KJV) (1)

When it came to the Bible, my Grandpa used to say—and I paraphrase here—that understanding the time, the place, the circumstances, and even the audience of the words was key to understanding the Bible. I would add that an understanding of the countless translations, as well as the additions and subtractions, is also quite important.

The Christian Bible is the most-read book in human history. It is also the most published, most quoted, most translated, and most interpreted book in history.

The Christian Bible is also the most misquoted, mistranslated, and misinterpreted book of all time.

I come to this somewhat heretical conclusion based on God-given common sense. It seems obvious that if the so-called "Word of God" is as advertised, there would only need to be one translation in any language and certainly only one interpretation for all languages. The fact that these important—even critical—standards are not met ensures that the Bible is perpetually not only misquoted but also lacks a standard interpretation of what it all actually means.

You can easily prove this to yourself by visiting the website Bible Gateway. There you will find over sixty translations of the Bible into just the English language. Why? Shouldn't it be a somewhat straightforward—if perhaps difficult—task to translate the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts into English? Yet we are left with dozens of versions of what is supposed to be the foundational documentation of the Christian faith.

Why are there so many different translations of the Bible? It is because there are so many interpretations of what the Bible means. When words are interpreted to have different significance between different factions, it becomes incumbent on those factions—also known as denominations—to translate their version of the Bible to match their specific interpretations, also known as doctrines.

Again you can prove this for yourself by simply visiting Bible Gateway and comparing translations. While many differences are simply a matter of making the text more contemporary, the words grammatically easier to read, or even adding commentary, it is also true that in some cases the difference in translation change the entire meaning of passages.

Let me illustrate with one of my favorite examples. These are the first two translations, King James 21st Century and the American Standard Version in the Bible Gateway of a small but critical verse- 2 Timothy 3:16

KJ21

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

ASV

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:

It is easy to read these two translations and overlook a significant difference in the two translations. The King James version with the insertion of the verb "is" has made all scripture God inspired, whereas the American Standard Version only says that the scriptures inspired of God is profitable etc. The original KJV added the "is" in translation, in fact if you have an old King James Bible you will see the is in italics to note it was added. Making all scripture God inspired is now very much an important part of the Christian narrative so most versions go with it.

It is subtle translation manipulations whether through ignorance or in order to establish a particular doctrine which shields and hides the truth from Christians. There is much more than can be said about translations and we will as we go along.

Just as it seems obvious that there should only be one translation of the Bible, there should also be only one interpretation/doctrine. And if this were all true, there would only be one denomination, which I guess we would simply call Christians. The reality is that Christianity is a myriad of sects and denominations that often have profound differences as to what Christianity is or is not—all using their particular interpretation and translation to justify their particular doctrine.

Sometimes these differences are small points that have more to do with what amounts to proper procedures, i.e., wet baptism or dry, Saturday or Sunday, Priest or Preacher, etc. The list of procedural differences between factions seems endless, and to be honest, mostly tediously petty in the overall scheme of, well, eternity. Sometimes, however, there are grand theological distinctions between Christian factions that create what amounts to competing religions. All in the name of Christ.

This is not to say that there is not a somewhat agreed-upon narrative of what the Bible means. I call it the John 3:16 narrative.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. (ASV) (2)

This is the overriding narrative of mainstream Christianity. You (the human) believe in Christ, and then you are saved and enjoy eternal bliss. However through various narrative extrapolations, Christians are taught that if you do not believe in Jesus, you will be thrown into the eternal punishment of hell. Gee, nice loving God you got there, Christians—no thanks, I'll take my chances with the devil.

That in a nutshell is the Christian narrative. Oh sure, we gloss it over with all sorts of doctrinal nonsense and love-of-God carroty sweetness, but behind our backs, we wield the stick of eternal punishment. It really is all just—to put it gently—childish gobbledygook, all dressed up in its Sunday best. A cursory examination of the Christian narrative reveals just how mind numbing it can be.

GOD IS LOVE....until He sentences your foul mouthed drunkard Uncle Jessy to eternal torment for not accepting Christ as his personal Savior. Or the nice Buddhist Monk? Don't worry some faction will come up with a plan so that God won't burn the good people or the innocents - and some factions won't.

It is not that the Bible does not contain the truth; it is that it has been humanized into a perversion befitting of the God-given fallibility and frailty of the flesh in particular- vanity. But God does not operate on the human level and neither should Christians when trying to understand and explain Him.

For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. (NKJV) (3)

The first challenge in trying to find the truth in the Bible is to earnestly look for it anew, it takes humility to open yourself up to a new spiritual viewpoint. I was blessed in that I inherited it from far more godly ancestors than myself.

The second critical challenge is simple but so important, remember you are eternal as God is eternal. Human time frames in your judgements are irrelevant. How many times in your life have terrible situations worked to the good. How many "jerks" have turned out to be wonderful human beings. Remember it all works out in the long run, and the long run is forever.

Finally about the Bible. It is to important to come to accept that the Bible has three distinct and critical time frames. We look at the Bible as the New and Old Testament but there is a third time frame which for Christians is mostly ignored yet vital. It is ignored because we think and are told that it is basically post salvation filler with a bit of apocalyptic drama to keep us on our toes at the end. But the third part, oh that third act is simply glorious.

The Old Testament

The oversimplified creation story, and God revealing Himself to mankind through His chosen people, the Jews... and all their crazy adventures.

God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” (CSB) (4)

The Gospels of Jesus (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John)

God revealing His spiritual self to the Jews through His Son, the Jewish Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus' ministry to the Jews; Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecy by His crucifixion; and, of course, the resurrection of Christ.

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (ESV) (5)

The Gospel of God (The remainder of the New Testament)

This is where God—primarily through the glorified Christ passed along through Paul—reveals His spiritual plan for humankind... This is where the meat of the Bible is and where it is most misquoted, mistranslated, and sorely misinterpreted. It is also where it all once "properly divided" not only makes common sense, it is really Good News

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated unto the Gospel of God. (KJ 21) (6)

Shall we get started?

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. (NET) (7)

Trump'sTariffs

2025-08-07T21:03:00.006-04:00

The success of Trump's economic plan going forward will largely depend on who pays—or absorbs—the tariffs. There are four main possibilities for every tariff on every product or commodity: the foreign government (not likely in most cases), the producer of the product, the wholesaler or retailer, or the American consumer. Complicating matters further, for every product or commodity, there are different breakdowns of how much each party pays or absorbs. Needless to say, the possibilities are almost endless and could change over time. A producer might be willing to absorb a large portion of the tariff expense initially to maintain market share, but over time decide to pass the cost down the line.

Trump makes it sound like all this money will continue to flow into the US Treasury from foreign entities. Initially, it mostly has, because foreign manufacturers covet American markets—but at what cost and for how long? That's unknown. More and more, these tariff expenses will most likely result in either higher prices for American consumers and/or a tightening of supply chains, which means shortages. And shortages, by the undeniable law of supply and demand, will result in higher prices.

Of course, tariffs themselves are only part of the equation. The other part is increasing domestic manufacturing and supply to our markets. This will not only reduce our dependence on foreign products and commodities but also create greater domestic wealth, productivity, and employment. This takes time but is critically necessary to enable the future viability of the American experience.

There is no doubt that the US must reclaim and rebuild its manufacturing base. We also need to reset the economic playing field. Trump is a great salesman, but not necessarily always a totally upfront one. There is absolutely no way to predict how this is all going to play out; there are simply far too many variables at play, and much of what will happen is unknowable. Humility is certainly not Trump's strong suit, and though this all may work out in the long run, in the short run Trump may wish he had not promised so much. In the short term, this could be painful—even if necessary.

One IS the Loneliest Number

2025-05-27T19:29:00.000-04:00

I have often, not so jokingly, observed the the modern left will ultimately abort themselves into obscurity. It truly is just a matter of math.

In my own life I have observed this coming to fruition or more accurately not coming to fruition. The liberals of my youth who did not change direction have far fewer (if any) grandchildren as they reach old age. Look around you, you will see.

The "liberal" mindset that developed during my generation, the ironically named Baby Boomers, were and have been no better than a death cult. The added irony in all of this is that my generation amongst other accomplishments and follies is known for the so called sexual revolution. Obviously, fortunately, not all "Boomers" followed this ideological path to leftist oblivion, but enough did that it has seriously slowed and hindered the progress of American society. As I have often noted, a society that champions death is bound to die.

It began, well it actually began with The Pill, and that is probably where it could and should have ended, if it had we would live now in a much better and healthier nation. From that we went to abortion, which quite quickly dissolved from "a woman's right to choose" into "shouting your abortion" to an evil death cult of satanistic worship of the killing of the unborn. Or maybe even the just born. How about until three months old? All spoken of openly in not so polite American society,

History shows that when a society accepts and has these anti-life threads entwined within the delicate cohesive fabric that is civilization, other evil practices which society holds at bay will begin to manifest themselves, all under the guise of tolerance and inclusiveness. Pedophilia, child mutilation, assisted suicide, the list is as old and long as humankind. All of this leads even more societal breakdown, drug addiction, increasing murder rates, wanton pornography, this list too is long and old.

The source however can, in a large measure, be traced to a simple but vital ingredient to peaceful societies.

The cherishing of the sanctity of life itself.

Once you lose that one simple ingredient, everything else that makes civilization possible is off the table.

People wonder why the modern left, which I might point out is mostly the product of, and still mostly led by aging Boomers, is so keen on mass migration legal and illegal. It is because they are dying. They are dying because they and their policies, the things that they champion are a self destructive death cult. They need a new core of followers, spoiler alert, it won't work.

It won't work for one simple reason, other than the criminal and anti-American element imported by the modern left into America, the remainder if they stay, are normal human beings who cherish life and family. This is neither an argument for amnesty or against it, it is just the reality of life.

The importers behind our current migration madness have no heritage, they have aborted or neutered them psychologically if not physically. The young women shouting their abortions today will be the old maids of a very lonely future.

Death Cults die because they kill their future whereas the normal natural, God given instinct is to cherish it.

Cherish life and all will be well.

The math of the twenty first century

2025-01-28T23:09:00.003-05:00

Trump will continue to crack down on criminal illegal alien's, which in itself is a giant undertaking, but when it comes to massive deportations I suspect that is not in the cards. Many are and will continue to self deport especially as government benefits end. As far as rounding up millions of illegals and shipping them back, not likely. For one reason it would not be good for business and if nothing else Trump is a businessman.

I know this sounds cold, but the fact of the matter is our nation needs workers, I know this from forty plus years in retailing and mostly in construction. The reason we need immigrants, legal or not, is not because they will do the work Americans won't do, which is mostly true, we need them because we just don't have the people...period.

The entire world's population is collapsing, and even with immigration, so is America's. In the coming decades, nations will begin to collapse simply because they do not have the people to sustain their societies, and in the First world it is the worst. By mid century even India will begin a downward trend, China already has.

The so called elitist or globalist or whatever you want to call them (WEF etc.) know this and their plan has been to flood the West with third world immigrants, and in the process destroy the middle classes of nations. The middle classes are the bedrock demography which fuels democracy. Without a large middle class you have what has been the history of humanity for most of civilization, a powerful few, controlling a large subservient working class, feudalism. That is the globalist goal, a technocratic world where a few rule the diminished many. "You will own nothing and you will be happy." The Great Reset.

Obviously Trump is not a part of this and very much opposes it. The problem though is the undeniable fast approaching population collapse. What Trump is attempting to do is no less than to restructure America back to its vibrant industrious past, but to do that you need people. People to build, people to produce, people to protect the nation. It takes a growing population to maintain and grow a prosperous society. The most valuable and scarce resource in the coming century is people.

This is why it is doubtful that Trump will have anywhere near the mass deportations that his supporters believe there will be. It is the math of the twenty first century. I expect that by the end of Trump's term that we will see perhaps three maybe as many as five million illegal aliens actually deported. Hopefully Trump will do it wisely.

To actually do just five million he would need to deport 3500 a day, every day, his entire Presidency, and he is already behind that. This means that when he leaves office in four years there will still be many millions here. Not only will they be here but at that point will have been here for years. Establishing themselves in our communities, working, having children, creating new lives for themselves and they are not just going to go away. The vast majority are here to stay.

The true challenge for America, for Trump, is how to incorporate them into American society. The true challenge for America is how to accept and even embrace this new reality. My suggestion is to do it with kindness and an open heart, so they become real Americans and not Democrats. But this, more than likely, is the future.

Of and in unto all

2025-01-12T00:46:00.000-05:00

The other night I was watching the college football game between Ohio State and Texas. An Ohio State running back got a costly penalty and was pulled for a bit and sat on the bench. He had taken off his helmet and on his cheeks below the black glaze blocker many wear on each cheek was written Romans 3:22.

As is my habit when I want to look up a Bible verse I went to the online Bible Gateway which allows you to look up the verse in its multiple translations or more accurately its multiple interpretations. As usual I first looked up the King James version of the verse.

Romans 3:22

21st Century King James Version

22 even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,

Great verse and pretty self explanatory with what would seem to have little reason to be controversial or easy to misinterpret or mistranslate. Oh but to the knowledgeable, I am, it is a verse which is a minefield of theocratic and doctrinal nuances. Without going to any other translations I knew that the simple word "of" was going to be a problem. I even knew that many if not most of other versions of "God's Word" would not say "of" but would say in.

Example one:

American Standard Version

22 even the righteousness of God through faith [a]in Jesus Christ unto all [b]them that believe; for there is no distinction;

Footnotes

a Romans 3:22 Or, of

b Romans 3:22 Some ancient authorities add and upon all.

So the American Standard version at least puts a footnote stating that it could also be "of" rather than "in" as they actually used it, nice of them. However if you take the original Geek text "πίστεως Ἰησοῦ" translates to "faith of Jesus" in English. Try it.

Then there is that second footnote, which adds back in what the text took out of the verse upon all, or as the King James and some other version leave in unto all and upon all those who believe. Much bigger audience there I would say.

Let's do a couple more "versions" of God's Word as interpreted by men.

English Standard Version

22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction

So is God not righteous if we do not have faith "in Jesus? And what is that "there is no distinction" doing hanging out there in this version with not even a footnote to be found? No distinction (διαστολή) from what? Maybe it the rest of humanity left out by adding our 'in' rather than Jesus's "of."

GOD’S WORD Translation

22 Everyone who believes has God’s approval through faith in Jesus Christ.

There is no difference between people.

What do you mean there is no difference between people? In the line above (in this version) you just said that the people who have faith 'in' Jesus Christ have God's approval. That sounds like a pretty big difference to me. It seems to me that these Bible folks have been walking a slippery slope and now they are just winging it.

Good News Translation

22 God puts people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. God does this to all who believe in Christ, because there is no difference at all:

So now we have gone from God's righteousness reveled (to us) through the "faith of Jesus", to God making us right(eous) through our faith 'in' Jesus. Our so called salvation ceased to be a God/Jesus Christ thing to now being an us thing. How convenient, how human.

But they can't seem to explain that "difference" thing just hanging out there in Romans 3:22.

I am just a simple man, but I have read enough scripture in many versions, to know that faith is a gift from God, and I thank God for that undeserved gift which I did nothing to earn. It was the faith "of" Jesus Christ...not me.

Oh by the way the Ohio State running back was put back in the game and ended up scoring the go ahead touchdown to win the game. I think he even pointed up to the entity responsible, like the verse on his cheek.

New International Version

22 This righteousness is given through faith in[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,

Footnotes

Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of

EasyEnglish Bible

22 God accepts people as right with himself because Jesus Christ did what God wanted. God accepts every person who believes in Christ. It is the same way for everyone, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

Because

2024-05-31T07:40:00.002-04:00

I do not believe in God because of the beauty of nature.

Because the sun shining through the multi hewed green forest canopy can make my heart leap with an undefinable mysterious joy.

Because the quiet whiteness of a first snow fall blanketing a moonlit landscape calms me to my core.

Because the warm sea breeze that makes me gasp at the beauty of an evening's orange sunset as the sun sinks into the blue horizon.

Because the vastness that awes me looking out upon a pasture of blinking fire flies which melt into a sky filled with infinite stars

No I do not believe in God because of these and limitless other natural phenomena which surround me, they could all be there by chance.

I believe in God

Because

I exist with the capacity to be moved by them, and that cannot be by chance.

Awakening From Madness

2023-04-08T12:08:00.004-04:00

I post about the so called covid vaccine often. The truth is I post a small fraction of the personal stories, studies and statistics that I have come across and mostly saved over the past two plus years.

I have refrained from posting more out of concern of being considered a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I also realize that the vast majority of my friends and family who might still read what I post are themselves vaccinated. It is not easy to tell people that they have had a poison injected into them. But truth is truth and the truth here is worse than the obvious, if that is even possible.

If one tenth of what I know to be true is in fact true then we, as a nation and as individuals are in deep trouble, and I have no doubt than far more than ten percent is true.

The enormity of the issue is only appreciated if/when you accept that the CDC, FDA etc, have and continue to lie about a substance they have promoted. A product which has and continues to injure and even kill people. The seriousness of the situation is only grasped when you accept the implications that they knew from the beginning that the harm was present and yet they promoted it. Think about what that means

Initially I assumed it was some tragic mistake. A mistake that once realized would be admitted and corrected. When this did not happen I assumed it was simple greed playing its destructive game. Then as more and more information came out, it became obvious that this was not a mistake, or greed, but a plan. A plan perhaps facilitated by greed, but a plan none the less. To put it bluntly, officials inside the US government have deliberately poisoned the American citizenry.

Being the premier health organizations in the world, their conduct meant other nations with less sophisticated "standards" would follow their lead, and they did. It is now known that in some cases other nations followed the US lead not out of ignorance but in coordination with them.

Today, April 8, 2023, comes the most recent example of the awakening from this madness. Switzerland has halted Covid vaccinations and all vaccination recommendations have been withdrawn. Meanwhile, in the United States the CDC and other government agencies not only continue to promote this poison, they spend billions of taxpayers dollars to regularly advertise it in print, on the radio and on television.

Operation Warp Speed is in reality " Warp Death." Around the world where the vaccine has been widely used life expectancy are falling as excess deaths are rising.

In an honest society the media, politicians, not to mention health authorities would long ago have been ringing alarm bells and seeking out solutions to this disaster. We no longer live in an honest society. Everyone has an agenda, every institution has been corrupted. Truth tellers are demonized and ignored as madmen scheme and evil plans our future.

The solution? Truth. Truth must be told, truth must be believed and truth must prevail. Hiding from the truth never works in life and it certainly won't here, it will only make things worse.

What's Wrong with Golf Courses?

2023-03-05T21:55:00.002-05:00

I first became interested in investigating climate change, back when it was commonly referred to as just global warming when I joined the Weather Underground blog site. I joined because living in Florida I wanted to keep up with tropical weather. As it turned out i have made several lifetime friends through my WU experience which has bee a true blessing.

At the time there was a great deal of discussion about global warming in the WU blogs and I became very interested in the subject, I branched out and began reading scientific papers as well as other bloggers. One of the most influential bloggers both for me as well as others was Watts Up With That?

This website was started by a Northern California meteorologist, Anthony Watts, hence the name. Watts began his website initially as part of an investigation into weather stations and the methodology around recording temperatures that go into the "data" which determine the science behind "global warming." It has grown to be much more than that now but from the beginning it as been a tremendous source of information on the "science" behind climate change.

One aspect that the initial Watts' investigation brought to light was that a large number of the stations used to record the temperature data which went into the climate data were located in places which were not necessarily representative of the local climate. In that spirit let me show you an example of why and how data is not always what it seems to be.

The picture above is a screenshot of upper New England from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. Each of those red dots represents a station where this environmental data is recorded and passed onto NOAA as part of their climate "mission."

I chose the northern New England states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine because they are not heavily populated. Vermont ranks 49th, New Hampshire 42nd and Maine 43rd in population. They are basically rural states and even their population centers are not "metropolitan."

These three sates contain forty five reporting station. Maine has twenty, New Hampshire fourteen and Vermont eleven. Let's take a look at three seemingly remote stations, one from each state.

We shall start with Maine and let's go to the northern most red dot in Maine. A rather remote station located south of Edmundston, Canada. By the way, if you go to the link for the NOAA site provided above you can zoom in on any of these sites to get a better picture of their surroundings.

Now we shall take a look at a station in New Hampshire. This time we will go to the south of the state the center red dot at the bottom. Again the station is located in a fairly rural setting.

Finally a station located in Vermont. To maintain latitudinal diversity, let's pick one near the center of the state, the red dot just north of Montpelier.

Did you notice that these three "information centers" for climate change have something in common. Why yes, they are all in rural settings but they also are all located at airports. You know those large expanses of concrete and pavement. I know what you are thinking, I just picked these stations because they were located at airports, and you would be correct, I did.

In my defense I really did not have too many choices. Of the 45 stations shown on the map, again this is where NOAA gets their climate data for these three rural low population states, 36 are at airports. Here is how it breaks down.

NOAA Climate Recording Stations at Airports

9/11 Vermont

11/14 New Hampshire

16/20 Maine

From a historical and logistical standpoint this makes perfect sense. Locating weather stations at airports has been going on for decades, it is convenient, secure and easily monitored. It is also where much of the information that is gathered is required for air transportation.

The problem, from a "climate change" perspective is obvious. As airports expand to accommodate growth, they increasingly do not represent the actual environment that surrounds them. Even when they are small airports and remain so, such as these I have shown, they still do not represent their surroundings from a temperature recording stand point,

Look at the last posted picture above of the Vermont station's location. What would be a more accurate depiction of the local climate's temperatures, a thermometer near or even surrounded by a paved area, or down the street, off the ninth fairway of the local golf course?

There is far more to the story than these few random airports, but the fact remains that the vast majority of data collection which makes up the "climate" data comes from airports. It seems that if they wanted to accurately monitor the Earth's temperature they would just move the stations to, golf courses.

Or better yet just use satellites.

Wrong Turn

2023-02-25T12:29:00.001-05:00

Have you ever been on a trip and made a wrong turn and ended up traveling in the opposite direction than you intended? Twenty miles down the road, you suddenly realize that you are headed in the wrong direction. The worst part is not just the miles you went, it is also the gas (money) you used and the time you lost, and that’s not all. You have to spend just as much time, go just as many miles and use just as much gas (money) again to just get back to where you made the mistake. In effect you have lost the equivalent of not the twenty miles but sixty, the twenty gone wrong the twenty return and the twenty more you should have been and you can never get the time and gas (money) back, they are lost.

Some years ago I used the above analogy to explain what would happen if the science of climate change (global warming) was wrong. Specifically what would be the affect on governments and their policies if they planned for a warming environment and instead we were entering into a cold phase.

A rational society would use experience and fact based evidence to reach important decisions and policies. The climate change agenda is almost totally driven by model based "evidence." Models obviously have a place in decision making, but most models, engineering models for example, are based on rock solid physically proven input and even at that they are sometimes wrong. Some variable that was not anticipated or left out creates changes that the model did not account for.

An example of this in climate change from a few years back was the dire warning of the climate induced destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest. This had nothing to do with harvesting of the rain forest for farming or development, it was a model driven study which foretold of the loss of the rain forest due to rising temperatures brought on by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

"Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say"
Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rainforest, according to a devastating new study which predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises.

Then just four years later the same scientist came back with a new study which not only made the dire warning obsolete it reversed it.

"Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared - study"
The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.
The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

The scientist had totally ignored carbon dioxide as a plant fertilizer in there first model "run"! The very source they modeled as being destructive was in fact beneficial to the rain forest.

From purely a narrative perspective the original study was devastating to the actual truth. The destruction of the rain forest was just one more thing that climate change "caused" and that along with countless other falsehoods reinforced the "truth" of man's destruction of Earth by burning fossil fuels. The actual truth was just a footnote, the falsehood was a headline.

Many, especially a generation of impressionable youths, came to believe in the inevitable destruction of our planet due to climate change. Now those generations are mainstream adults planning their lives and setting policies based on a modeled future that will not exist. The Sun will determine the climate as it always has.

A false hypothesis is driving us headlong down a highway in the wrong direction and we show no sign of changing course. What are the consequences? Lost time and lost money being spent by a lost society. Though many might just be following the pack we were navigated there by deceitfulness, greed and a lust for power by a cadre of scientists, politicians, media and business leaders who fed on the intrinsic good of humans to "do right."

I am a believer that truth wins out in the end, but even with the truth, it does not mean justice always prevails. Some good will come of all this, but the heart and mind find little ease when pondering what might have been....had we not taken a wrong turn.

Stalemate-we lose

2023-02-23T00:07:00.006-05:00

In the eighties Ronald Reagan used the United States economy to help in the destruction of the old Soviet Union. By simply outspending the Soviets in the "arms race" he began the demise of the communist regime. In order to keep up with the United States militarily, the Soviet Union had to spend money that their inefficient system just could not match. This in turn caused domestic discontent, especially in the Soviet's "satellite" nations which only compounded their woes, causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.

During the cold war there were obvious "proxy" wars. Notable but by no means the only examples were the Soviets helping Viet Nam against us just as we helped the Afghans against the Soviet Union.

But times have changed. The United States is no longer the economic or military bemouth it once was.

We are a debtor nation whose very existence is based solely on borrowed money, which means borrowed time. The inflation we are suffering under now is just a small down payment to that debt we have created and stupid policies are shackling our economic abilities.

Our military is superior based primarily on our technological advantage in weaponry. Our actual "fighting force" is a shell of what it was just a decade ago, a lethal shell kept so due to that technological edge.

The opposition has changed as well, Russia is not the old Soviet Union. Militarily from all appearances and I suspect in reality they are to a large degree inept. Even given the tremendous motivation and courage of Ukraine, the Russians ought to have defeated Ukraine in short order, they did not. But does that really matter?

This is not a guerilla type war like Viet Nam or Afghanistan, this is an old fashioned European land war. A war fought for territorial conquest and the destruction of the opposing military. In a that kind of war, size matters.

What is unfolding now is not unlike what occurred during the US Civil War. Not politically or philosophically but militarily. A highly motivated and better led smaller opponent is able to hold back and indeed inflict a terrible price to a much larger but poorly led invader. But how long can that last? Especially if the larger invader is not concerned with either public opinion or losses.

Truth is, it would already be over if the United States and NATO were not bolstering up Ukraine with all that high tech weaponry and money to keep Ukraine afloat. Again, how long can that last? How long can the West continue to support Ukraine? And even with that support how long until Ukraine can no longer supply the manpower to fight a much larger Russian nation?

What happens if China begins to supply Russia with weapons as Iran and North Korea have already done? What happens if, as one example, any or all three of Russia's allies, North Korea, Iran or China send troops into the conflict? Regardless, Russia has far more men to send to die than Ukraine and the ruthlessness to do it.

Unlike when Reagan bled Russia dry, the reverse may very well be happening. The West is crippling itself to keep up with what the Russians are doing to Ukraine. Russia's economy is doing fine. They still have large markets for both their oil and grains. Unaligned nations are remaining neutral and still trading with Russia. All our sanctions have made them richer while making us poorer.

The Russian population is not suffering or in deprivation under the burden of their countries invasion. In fact they are still eating at the McDonalds that the West gave to them, "to teach them a lesson." Toyota sold Russia all their inventory and manufacturing plants, for a dollar! That will show them!

While China and Russia grow closer, we blow up a pipeline to the European nation with the largest economy. Freezing your friends seems like a winning strategy, right?

Meanwhile millions of brave Ukrainians suffer and die in a war they can only win if the US and NATO enter the war, something we can only do now if we are willing to start an unfathomable World War in the Twenty First Century. A war which, even without nuclear weapons, could drive civilization back a hundred years.

So, where does that leave us? The longer the stalemate the more we lose, and the weaker we become. If we enter the war it almost doesn't matter who "wins" we all lose. It seems like the only sane answer is a negotiated settlement. And here is what that will eventually be.

Russia is given the Donbass region and Crimea and Ukraine joins NATO. Or we can fight to the last Ukrainian.

Muddy Waters

2023-02-16T22:21:00.000-05:00

Truth is a most resilient force.

The truth about Covid and it's warp speed "cure" is beginning to bubble to the surface from the deep dark pool of muddy water into which its attempted drowning was perpetrated.

This does not mean anything will happen, the fact that truth always prevails does not mean that justice does. Truth is a natural force while justice, in this realm, is determined by the actions, or inaction, of men.

Cold Places

2023-02-03T21:50:00.002-05:00

As we know, when ice is on/in water and it melts it does not raise water levels. Frozen water is still just water. Ice on land is a different matter, when it melts it makes its way to the oceans which can raise ocean levels. Much of the hysteria in the "climate change" narrative has to do with melting ice. and they try mightily to confuse and distort the issue

GREENLAND

In the summer of 1958 the USS Nautilus achieved an amazing nautical feat by sailing submerged across the Arctic Ocean passing beneath the North Pole. To date no such achievement has not been replicated under the South Pole. For obvious reasons, the Arctic is an ocean whereas Antarctica is a continent otherwise known as land.

When the Nautilus completed its historic journey under the polar ice, it surfaced off the coast of Greenland, which is covered with a tremendous amount of ice. How much ice? The scientist say that if all the ice on Greenland were to melt it would raise the ocean levels by twenty three feet, wow scary stuff.

At the time Nautilus surfaced there were some abandoned airplanes on that massive Greenland ice sheet, well not actually on it but rather in it.

In July of 1942 a squadron of airplanes, two B-17 bombers and six P-38 fighters flying from the U.S. to Britain ran into a blizzard and had to land on the ice field. This became known as the Lost Squadron. Fortunately all the crew members were rescued nine days later but the planes were left behind. By the time the Nautilus surfaced off Greenland in 1958 the planes were under the ice they had landed on.

How do we know this? Well fifty years after landing on the ice, in 1992, they were discovered....two hundred and sixty feet below the surface of the ice! In fact, using modern technology and with great determination, one of the P-38 planes was recovered and restored. However the indisputable fact of the matter is that over a fifty year span ice accumulated on the ice sheet at an average rate of over five feet per year.

Now that global warming is melting the ice of Greenland and allegedly raising sea levels, it must just be a matter of time before, like some science fiction movie, these planes surface and fly off into the sunset. Well not exactly. Another group of people took up the search and in 2018 located another one of the missing P-38's....now over three hundred feet below the ice surface!

Poul Christoffersen, a Canmridge University senior scientist of Glaciology, a Glaciologist, in a recent news story said "The ice in Greenland is melting on the surface faster than the snowfall can keep up with, so there is quite a big loss from the melting. In a substantial part of the ice, we get melt rates which can be up to five or six centimeters a day."

I have a simple question. If a plane lands on top of an ice field in 1942 and 50 years later is 260 feet under the ice and in another 26 years it is over 300 feet under the ice, how can the ice be melting faster than the snowfall can keep up?

This is simply nonsense. Let's try some common sense, something totally ignored when it comes to "climate change."

The theory of global warming says that in the upper latitudes which certainly includes Greenland, the warming is supposed to occur mostly in the winter time. So what does that mean? Eighty percent of Greenland is above the Arctic Circle this is where that one mile thick ice sheet is and has been for over at least a million years. If it warms in the winter time, when the average temperature is well below freezing, what difference does it make?

Consider this, Thule is the second most northerly town in the world yet is still eight hundred mile south of the North Pole has an average temperature that ranges from -24.5 °C (-12 °F) in February to 5 °C (41 °F) in July. It is also located on the coast not on that giant ice field. If, as in this case the temperature in winter still never gets above freezing, what difference does it make if it is slightly warmer, what melts?

Let's take another town, even further south and again on the coast where it is warmer, Ilulissat. This town only averages above freezing temperatures for the months June-September. The average temperature those months is June 5.9C(42.6F), July 8.2C (46.7F), August 6.6C (43.8F), September 2.5C (36.5). Ilulissat is 145 miles north of the Arctic Circle and 1475 south of the North Pole yet it's average summer temperatures do not get out of the forties. From October to May the temperature never averages above freezing and this is south of the great ice fields that need to melt to flood our costal cities. How?

This is from a recent ABC News article

A sharp spike in Greenland temperatures since 1995 showed the giant northern island 2.7 degrees (1.5 degrees Celsius) hotter than its 20th-century average, the warmest in more than 1,000 years, according to new ice core data.

So is that supposed 2.7 degree spike in temperature driving winter temperatures up to -9F in winter and 49F in July? Are million year mile thick ice sheets melting in three months of a summer temperatures most of the world calls winter? Is ice now melting in temperatures above freezing?

The highest in a thousand years? Like when the Vikings settled there from 982AD until the 1400's when it started to get cold again.

The simple truth is, if, and that is a big if, the Arctic or Antarctic regions are getting warmer it is still extremely cold and that cold is caused by the Earth's Poles position relative to the Sun. There is nothing that can alter that and water still freezes when it reaches 32F (0C).

The question you should ask is how hot would the summers have to be to melt the ice formed in eight months of freezing cold? I doubt your answer would be in the forties.

We haven't even explored where the real land ice is, in Antarctica. Greenland is a very small summer island paradise compared to that cold place which is only getting colder.

The Zoo

2023-01-15T09:03:00.001-05:00

When I was a kid there was a popular movie and an equally popular song called Born Free. Wikipedia has a good synopsis of the movie but I shall give a far briefer one here.

The true story is based around an African senior wildlife warden who was sent to kill a "menacing" lion. He kills him and it's mate who was protecting her cubs. The warden and his wife take in the three cubs and raise them.

Over time the cubs whom they name Big One, Lastika, and Elsa become to much to handle so they send the two older cubs to a zoo, keeping the youngest one Elsa. Elsa grows up and inadvertently causes an elephant stampede, so their boss, they live on an animal preserve, tells them Elsa must go.

Not wanting to put Elsa in a zoo they determine to reintroduce the now grown Elsa back into the wild. This, as it turns out, is not an easy task. After a few unsuccessful attempt including the near death of Elsa trying to adjust back into the wild, they eventually succeed at returning her to her natural habitat where, we assume, she lives happily ever after.

Cue Music sung by Andy Williams of Moon River fame

Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart
Live free and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star
Stay free, where no walls divide you
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide
Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free
(Stay free, where no walls divide you)
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide
Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free

A wonderful story meant to teach the lesson of allowing creatures to live in their natural environment, it is better that way, we would all agree.

But what about Big One and Lastika? They were sent to the friendly confinement of the Rotterdam Zoo for the rest of their lives, no movie about them. In the movie, we are left with the scene of Elsa frolicking through the savannahs with her new adopted pride of fellow lions, but left out is her siblings left to waste away as a side show for the amusement of a generation of Dutch children.

There are parallels in the the story of Born Free in our human society. I used to think, as a free American, that I too was born free. Able to wander free without worry through my world, not because I was anything special but because I lived in a special place, a free place. As the song says I was Born free, and life is worth living, but only worth living, 'cause you're born free.

I often find myself longing for the world I was born into, I remember it well, it is not nostalgia, rather a deep sense of loss. It is plain to see the zoo which is being built around us because I can clearly see how things have changed, how they used to be, how we thought they would always be.

Just as Big One and Lastika were forced to live in a world contrary to their instincts or I suspect their desires, we too are being herded into our cages. We watch in silent shock as what was simple everyday life slowly dissolves away into merely a memory, and as the zoo is painstakingly prepared for our children's ultimate confinement.

Unlike this generation of Americans, the future will live comfortably in their confinement not tormented by what used to be.

People are nothing if not adaptable. Once confined as a natural state of being, when confinement is the norm rather than the exception, they will not need to adapt to their environment. Confinement, the zoo, will be their environment. In short order freedom itself will become a disease to be avoided, the idea of freedom will become a fearful state to those raised protected in cages. To reinforce this fear the encaged will fear punishment from the ever present zookeepers. Comfortable acquiescence is preferable to tortured rebellion.

But a spark will live on in the spirit of man and eventually the rebellion will come, it always has. When it does some future generation will look back and ask why? Why did they not proclaim their freedom while they were still free? Why, when they could see the cages being built for them, for us their offspring, why did they not join together to save themselves? To save us?

The answer they will realize was that it was not themselves that they were called upon to protect, but rather us, their future. They did not step forward to stop the cages from being built because they were really not meant for them, but for us, their future. It was easier for them to live out their lives in the state of a comfortable diminishing freedom than to protect the future from imprisonment. They must not have seen the movie.

.....life is worth living

But only worth living

'cause you're born free

Taking Out the Trash

2023-01-02T01:33:00.001-05:00

Nothing represents the connection between climate change and hurricanes in the minds of its adherents than the covers of Al Gore's books. Polar Bears may be the poster child of the warmist community, but hurricanes are among their holiest of holy scriptures. In spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, it is a given to the "enlightened" that nothing so proves global warming as hurricanes.

Think that I exaggerate?

Consider the poster for An Inconvenient Truth the connection could not be more obvious, smoke stacks, (which actually spew forth steam), instead pouring forth a hurricane. Gore went further with his next book Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis by Al Gore which depicted multiple hurricanes threatening poor Mother Earth. It was, like the warmist' narratives, photo shopped, just make believe.

Despite the actual facts, it has been an article of faith for a generation that global warming is real and amongst its most dire threats are not only more hurricanes but far more powerful ones. To prove the point the compliant media and the warmist narrative mongers use every hurricane as a means to tie man made global warming to hurricanes.

To understand just how untethered these claims are from reality you must first understand a bit about the monitoring and recording of hurricanes. One important aspect of this endeavor seems like common sense, because it is. The recording and observation of hurricanes has improved over time. We are better at it now than we were. It is silly to even have to point this out, but the climate change narrative is nothing if not silly.

The further we go back in time the less accurate is the information we have on hurricanes. Modern accurate observation of hurricanes really began with the advent of satellite technology which began in earnest in 1980. So we can say that prior to then hurricane data was somewhat hit and miss and the further back you go the more misses there were.

The next important item to be aware of is how "the record" is defined when it comes to hurricanes. In other words what makes one year worse or better than another. Much like a baseball players batting average and other statistics you must have a gauge to compare against. Here are those metrics:

1. Number of named storms (Tropical Storm and above)

2. Named Storm Days

3. Number of Hurricanes (Category 1-5)

4. Hurricane Days

5. Number of Major Hurricanes (Category 3-5)

6. Major Storm Days

7. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)

All of these are fairly self explanatory, but the last, ACE, is both the least understood and the the most important in gauging a hurricane season.

From NASA:

Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the Atlantic hurricane seasons. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period.

In essence the ACE is the means by which we determine the season's score card, it's batting average if you will. Although all the other categories are important, it is the ACE that sums up the season and determines how powerful it was historically.

Going back a bit here. Remembering the historical record and its lacking in detail prior to 1980, it is noteworthy that without satellites or hurricane hunter aircraft or even radar the undisputed highest ACE ever recorded for a hurricane season in the North Atlantic was 1933 with an ACE of 258.57. In fact four of the highest five ACE seasons in the Atlantic were pre 1940! As previously pointed out, based on the limits to observation compared to modern technology all those are probably incomplete records as well. Not to mention being well before high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere,

It is natural, especially in North America, that we focus on the Atlantic Hurricane season but if Climate Change is a global problem then so too should its effect on hurricanes (cyclones) be global. With that in mind, let's look at the hurricane record in the satellite era, 1980 forward on a global scale. Using the Colorado State University Global Historical Tropical Cyclone Statistics I created this synopsis and comparison of the satellite era versus the just completed 2022 season.

GLOBAL	Named Storms	Named Storm Days	Hurricanes	Hurricanes Days
1980-2021 Average	86.43	409	47	165.77
2022 Season	87	336	40	115.25
Difference +/- Avg	0.57	-74	-7	-50.52
Lowest pre 2022	72 (1980)	309 (2010)	37 (2021)	115.25(2020)

GLOBAL	Major Hurricanes	Major Hurricanes Days	Accumulated Cyclone Energy
1980-2021 Average	24	53.15	764.54
2022 Season	17	36.25	559.6
Difference +/- Avg	-7	-16.90	-204.94
Lowest pre 2022	15 (1981)	19.5 (1981)	527.1 (1981)

The most telling item is that the 2022 season was not only well below the satellite era average, it was actually the second lowest ACE in the entire satellite era. In addition 2022 was lower than the satellite observational average in every category other than total storms.

This past year also tied 2020 for the fewest global hurricane days. Which in itself is interesting, that in a supposed worsening environment the two lowest number of hurricane days occurred in the past three years. Even more telling is that the next lowest number of global hurricane days at 119 was 2021. Put simply the past three hurricane seasons have had the fewest global hurricane days in the last forty two years of satellite observation!

In defense of Gore and his fellow travelers along the road of societal mayhem, the decade of the nineties was a particular robust period for global hurricane activity. The problem is that their contention and forecast were for increasing and intensifying activity, but the record does not bare that out.

Since 1980 there have been six years where the global ACE was above 1000. The highest was also the furthest back in time in 1992 with a 1198.4. It exceeded one thousand again in 1994 and again in 1997. This led to the decade of the nineties having the highest average ACE in the satellite period with 892.18.

The next thousand plus ACE year was in 2004 then not again until 2015 and then 2018. Both the decades of the twenty first century have fallen far below that nineties peak ACE, Down to 744.82 and 766.5 respectively. Certainly not the rise in hurricane activity we were and continue to be warned about. If the first three years of this current decade are any indication it is not going to move that needle upwards either. All three years are well below the long term ACE average.

They can continue to fearcast every storm as if it is the worst ever, but the reality simply is not there. There are not more or more intense hurricanes over a long enough period of time now to disprove their theory. It may take another decade or so for the obvious to become obvious, but in time it will.

It always was a rather simple theory which on its face makes sense. A warming world would create warmer oceans, which would cause hurricanes to increase in numbers and intensity. But like all theories in order for it to pan out the first premise must be correct for all that follows to fall into place. In this case the first premise is that additional CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by mankind's industrial growth would cause the needed warming. If this is false then all that is built upon that premise is just trash.

And the first premise is just trash.

The Curse

2022-12-18T10:22:00.001-05:00

From a Malthusian's perspective, life is not precious, it is a curse. Children are not precious they are poison.

Much of the progressive movement, both directly and indirectly, is influenced by Malthusianism.

Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off.

When you stand squarely on one side of a belief, it is always difficult to "see the other side." It is not just a matter of being "open minded" it is a matter of conviction, and with conviction comes certainty. It is difficult for a believer in the sanctity of life to understand that there could be any moral or even logical underpinning to those who do not. If, however, you take your own faith and convictions and subscribe that to the opposing view, the conflict is understandable. Malthusian progressives "believe" in the logic, and moral certainty of their views as much as we who oppose them believe in ours.

The primary, and to me, fundamental difference is that the sanctity of life is the fountain from which human progress flows, whereas the Malthusian fear of life leads to only darkness and human suffering. Once accepted, much of what traditionalist, of whatever political affiliation, see as mere cultural or policy differences with Malthusian progressives are in reality a matter of actual survival.

It goes without saying that abortion is not only championed by the Malthusian progressives, it is an article of that faith. Abortion is to them what childbirth is to us. The means by which the human race continues. For them it must be limited even reversed while for us, at minimum, it must be maintained. Both sides believe that their view is that which will enable the future of humankind.

Consider the "gender" controversy, whatever you may think of the progressive's infatuation with creating and then dividing us by gender, the net affect of the indoctrination is the reduction of human procreation. Put simply, gays cannot procreate, and this has nothing to do with parenting, it is a simple matter of biology. I personally have no objection to loving grounded lifestyles. However it appears the current purpose of the progressives is to create a new definition for what is a biological reality and to transform humanity into genderless, passionless automatons. Identifying as the opposite sex is not only accepted but encouraged among the most vulnerable, our youth. Carried forward this leads to many dangerous side affects, not the least of which can by sterility. At least in the name of affirmation, we confuse and stunt the normal process towards maturity. This Brave New Genderless World can only end with the reduction of the the human species.

The entire "Climate Change" charade is a direct result of a Malthusian fear of human progress and an increased human population on planet Earth. Much of the propaganda surrounding this myth of climate change is meant to portray humanity as a virus on Holy Planet Earth. It portrays humans as a virus that must be mitigated in order to "save the planet." One of the most disgusting anti-human advertisements I remember was a cartoon depicting squadrons of storks flying and dropping babies like bombs from airplanes destroying the forest and fields below. Human children were destroying the world.

The examples of anti-human propaganda, indoctrination, and policies are everywhere in our culture. Is it any wonder that suicide rates are at an all time high. Of course not, in fact assisted suicide is now the new "in thing." We are not talking about just the terminally ill, in Canada it is now permissible for the mentally ill and even children to ask a doctor for suicide drugs. Assisted suicide is the new abortion with the consent of the aborted.

All of this is the direct result of a Malthusian progressivism which seeks to cull the planet of the undesirable, which of course does not include them. This is the curse, not the human race, which now stalks the globe. This is the evil which must be eradicated from our society and it can only happen by recognizing it and calling it out for what it truly is.

Irony multiplied

2022-11-29T16:26:00.001-05:00

The World Cup in Qatar is being criticized for it's restrictions on, and repression of fans . Not only did Qatar, at the last minute, go back on it's promise to allow beer to be served, they are refusing entrance and in some cases even arresting people for wearing the "wrong" T shirts. 

The irony is this; Because stadiums full of unmasked people are being shown on international tv, even in China, it has caused the Chinese people to realize how much they are being repressed due to the CCP draconian covid restrictions. This along with the "lock down" fire that killed people in their apartment building is causing massive demonstrations around the the country.  It is not unlike the BLM riots in America revealing the hypocrisy of our own authoritarian "public health" officials.

Drip, Drip, Drip

2022-11-25T10:24:00.001-05:00

A narrative is a story, it can be true or not. The narrative of man made global warming was, as the lawyers might say, based on facts not yet in evidence. The creation of evidence of global warming has been one of the greatest scams and injustices in world history. Like all good fiction the story of man made global warming was based on a truth. This being that extra CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by industrialization causes the Earth to warm. That, with many caveats is true which few serious people deny.

Where the theory transformed into a narrative is when proponents of "catastrophic" global warming began to seek out and embellish reality. This was done for political reasons in order to make the "problem" worse than it ever truly was, is, or ever will be.

The process of selling the narrative is not unlike the Chinese water torture, "a process in which water is slowly dripped onto a person's forehead, allegedly driving the restrained victim insane." Over the previous three decades, scientists, politicians, and media with vested interest or agendas have dripped countless unproven assertions upon a trusting society. In doing so they have pushed a belief in something which is not only unproven but impossible.

The narrative has become the foundation for the theory rather than the evidence.

This is accomplished by introducing a scientific study showing an extreme or possible extreme result of global warming. This narrative will take hold and be widely publicized until it becomes accepted by the public and policy makers. Later studies often disagree or even disprove the original hyped study but by then the premise of the original study has become the "mainstream" and accepted into the narrative.

This process is repeated over and over again until most people are convinced that with so much science being promoted there must be something there. A narrative that constantly grows through the constant repetition of the falsehoods. All of this is amplified by agenda driven media and politicians.

The scientific treachery that underpins all of this is that most of the "studies" and "science" are based not on reality but on modelling of a future climate. These dire predictions which garner so much attention, that frighten generations of children, and a reordering of of societal policies are not based on the known but rather on a computer generated make believe future world. Models that are not only suspect, but incapable of forecasting a future as complex as Earth's climate. The known unkowns in the climate system in themselves make the idea of modeling the future climate impossible and the idea that minute amounts of carbon dioxide could so greatly effect the climate is simply put impossible.

Yet here we are.

Now we have reached the point that this farce has gone on so long that two dynamics are coming into conflict. The first is that the climate change propaganda has been so unrelenting for so long that it is accepted to some degree by most of society. However this comes into conflict with the fact that it, the theory, has been around long enough now to see that many of those predictions fail and continue to fail as time passes.

The solution? It is simple for the purveyors of climate Armageddon just ignore the failed projections and for the most part just ignore further scientific enquiry and just press on with societal changes as if their "theory" were reality, and sadly everyone plays along.

There is, of course, a price to pay when a lie becomes perceived reality on a global scale. The idea that carbon dioxide, the building block for life, is humankind's enemy rather than our friend is not only a staggering deception it is has had multi generational consequences for our species.

As bad as the entire façade of the climate change era has been, the consequences are worse. Once the scheme worked to indoctrinate and ensnare society, a blueprint was established. That blueprint is now being used to control society and rob us of our freedoms. Continuing to promote vaccines that don't really vaccine is just the new version of promoting global warming when the globe doesn't really warm. Claiming that deaths caused by vaccines are the result of the virus that the vaccine doesn't prevent is no different than claiming hurricanes are the result of a warming world that isn't.

And the drip, drip, drip of false science distorts and robs the future by deceiving the present.

"...for he is a liar and the father of lies."

The Time Is Now

2022-11-11T22:30:00.001-05:00

The United States appears to be irrevocably divided. On the one side is the progressive left who are in the process of transforming the nation into an autocratic democracy. A nation not unlike most of Europe where the citizenry is ruled more by an administrative state than as free citizens. On the other side are those who wish to remain and maintain the traditional constitutional republic as founded.

As it stands now the two opposing ideologies exist with seemingly little chance of reconciliation. For the past half century or more the two opposing forces have attempted to gain their way through imposition of their political will upon the other side. Neither side will likely cede their ideological views or be subjugated by the other.

It is time for coordination among political leaders, primarily governors in the "red" states. The opportunity for bold action is ripe but may be limited. Due to confluence of several favorable circumstances there is a rare if limited opportunity to force the issue without it deteriorating to force.

Foremost among them is the current composition of the Supreme Court. Since SCOTUS is currently occupied by a majority of constitutional originalist, it is possible to institute programs and priorities which are within the Constitution without worrying that they will be shot down. This may not last long.

The second reason is that the current political make up of the states favor it. There are no longer red governors in blue states which means they can focus on implementing policies without concern for blue state sensibilities. The goal is to isolate blue states not placate them anyway. Let the blue state's fall from the unbearable weight of their failed ideals. The goal should be to protect ourselves from them and protect against them pulling us down with them.

It is also the perfect time for red governors to coordinate their efforts because of the political dynamics now in play. Most of the current governors are not looking at reelection. Many are two term governors and most are precluded from running again. This fact also means that they have mandates from their constituents and can make bold moves. Most of these current and soon to be governors won their last election by hefty margins. Because of the divide in the nation, the red states have become redder just as the blue states have become bluer, people want boldness. With hardly an exception the current group of Republican governors, as a whole, are as conservative as we have had in generations.

The Republican Governors need to join together to create a constitutional division from the blue states using the tenth amendment as their shield.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Supreme Court is already in the process of reigning in the Federal administrative state, the red states should push this effort along by enacting common sense laws regardless of any Federal restrictions as long as these new laws or policies are not in conflict with actual Federal laws. Much of what we consider to be laws are not. They are bureaucratic enacted "policies," "guidelines," "recommendations," or other such "mandates" put in place by "departments" as the result of congress ceding their actual authority to executive branch agencies.
Pass laws that may be in conflict with Federal norms and if challenged collectively fight them in court. Unshackle local and state governments from burdensome "regulations" imposed by a bloated Federal administrative state whose primary purpose is empower themselves not to serve the people.
The governors should coordinate their efforts to take functions and power away from the Federal government. Establish or strengthen their own state police forces and resist the inroads of Federal policing agencies. If blue states can refuse to work with ICE then red states can refuse to work with the FBI and ATF on issues that put unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment as an example. If they become overzealous take them to court or flat out kick them out if they overstep their constitutional authority.
Strengthen state health, education and other social services in order to replace Federal programs. Combine and coordinate to fight back against the Feds use of funding to blackmail states to accept policies which states may not want to enact.
States rights despite the negative vitriol of the progressive left is a foundational principle of our constitutional republic
Create regional alliances to deal with large issues where several states in concert can replace or reduce the need for Federal programs.
Outlaw sanctuary cities within the states where they exist and any other harmful progressive policies that undermine their states and the nation.
Corporations who have ceded their independence to woke cronyism will quickly learn that they will either move back to free market principles or be in competition with new industries which will flourish in the area of the nation that embraces it.
The time is short, the window is open, Republican governors and legislatures need to proactively work together to reestablish Federalism in their combined states and let the blue states fail on their own, as they surely will. If they do not the window will close, it already is, and future generations of Americans will live in a much darker and less free America.

The Big Lie

2022-09-12T09:30:00.002-04:00

Perhaps nothing in the history of "science" has been so catastrophic to humankind than the transformation of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the building block of life which it is, into a harmful pollutant. By turning one of nature's greatest gifts into a villain, they have distorted reality into nightmare, a blessing into a curse. Worse they have used this distortion of truth to imprison humanity into a belief structure that is not only regressive to human prosperity, it is a leap backwards of scientific understanding of our world and universe. This, not so subtle, slight of hand is without doubt the most evil deception ever played on a civilized world and has become the playbook, a bible, to be used in all manner of distortions to entrap generations in a future built on lies.

"Carbon dioxide is a gas consisting of one part carbon and two parts oxygen. It is one of the most important gases on the earth because plants use it to produce carbohydrates in a process called photosynthesis. Since humans and animals depend on plants for food, photosynthesis is necessary for the survival of life on earth."

Lifeblood going dry

2022-09-09T15:49:00.001-04:00

If you had to pick one human development which fueled the tremendous surge in prosperity, industrial and technological advancement, increased standard of living and the transformation of mankind into the modern age, it would surely have to be the harnessing electricity for the good of humankind. Almost all human advancements in the twentieth century were the direct result of that singular remarkable achievement without which humanity would be, relatively and figuratively speaking, still trapped in darkness.

That being true it surprising how little care we have taken to ensure the continued abundance of this most necessary of necessities of the modern world. Outside food and water the generation of electricity is the single most important commodity to modern man. Even food and water are today dependent on an available constant supply of electricity. Nowhere is this more obvious than here in the United States.

With this in mind, consider this, ten states generate over fifty percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States. While it is true that nine of these ten states are among the ten most populated, those ten states neither comprise fifty percent of the US population nor is their individual electrical generation close to equitable. California is by far is the worst offender even though it ranks fourth in electricity production. It is home to the highest percentage of the US population, 11.93% while only generating 4.7% of the nation's electricity, meaning they have to "feed" off of other states for their citizen's electrical needs. New York is also in this category even though they rank ninth in production,3% of the US total, they are home to 6.07% of the nation's population.

Before going further, it should be noted that electric generation is not at all a function of the local fuel needed for electricity production. A power plant can be built without a local supply of fuel, most are. With the exception of hydro power, fuel can be imported, this is one reason natural gas pipe lines and trains are so important to our electrical supply. That being said, California is resource rich in fuel for a wide variety of electricity generation.

If you throw nuclear into the mix, no state is burdened by lack of available resources. Take Illinois as an example. Illinois is fifth on the list of electricity producing states at 4.5% of total US electric, just slightly behind California. Illinois is not known for an abundance of fossil fuels or hydro generating rivers but it produces 54.6% of its electricity from nuclear power. My own state of South Carolina is one of only three states, Illinois and New Hampshire being the others which produce over half their electricity from nuclear power. All very diverse in location, climate and geography.

Electricity generation is not a function of fuel, fuels are readily available, it is the function of public policy and a desire by policy makers to achieve "the greater good" for their constituencies.

Which state is the largest electricity producer in the US? Well, it is Texas of course. The Lone Star State produces 13.6% of the nations electricity with "only" 8.93% of the nations population. In fact Texas and Florida produce over 20% of the nation's electricity with 15.5% of the population. When it comes to providing for the nation's best interest, Alabama shows the way, it provides the sixth most electricity (3.7%) while being the twenty fourth most populous state. Consider that, Alabama produces more electricity than New York yet has fifteen million fewer residents.

States that cannot even meet their own energy needs and draw down the "grid" are truly threatening future generations. Massachusetts for example is the fifteenth most populous state yet it is forty first in electricity production, but I am sure they are proud that 30% of it is solar generated. The entire New England region is near the bottom in electric generation, yet produce more than average of what they do produce from solar. Meanwhile Wyoming which ranks fiftieth in population ranks thirty sixth in electrical generation while Vermont which ranks forty ninth in population is last in electrical production.

Past policy decisions to "transition to renewable" energy sources are crippling the nation's power supply. This is is no small matter, it is obvious electricity is the life blood of the modern world. This resource will become increasingly vital to everyday life as we advance into the technological age. With electricity people, nations, the entire world progress, without it we will stagnate and fall backwards into a far more hostile and less prosperous environment. A much darker existence.

It is really that simple

Vermont

Massachusetts

Delaware

California

New York

Maryland

Hawaii

New Jersey

Alaska

Rhode Island

The retreat

2022-03-09T16:06:00.001-05:00

Just before Russia's invasion of Ukraine took over the news cycle, a very strange though welcome development was beginning to take place. Beginning with Great Britain and spreading quickly across Europe, nations began to quickly dismantle their covid restrictions. Even Australia began to dial back their restrictions. This then spread to blue states in the U.S. and with a couple of exceptions, the race was on to dismantle the covid state which had been built over the past two years. As I said this was not a single nation phenomena, it was basically a reverse of course for the entire western world. 
The interesting part of this was this was being done at the very beginning of drop in Omicron cases, or in some cases, while this variant was still increasing in some jurisdictions.
The question is why? Why did even the most ardent "enforcers" begin to reverse course far sooner than their previous actions would indicate they should.  I have a theory on this and it is not polling numbers, though that probably helped. I believe that the "vaccine" not only failed in stopping the spread but the side affects are so massive and wide spread they had to stop pushing the covid narrative. The next step will be the silent recall of the vaccine(s). 

"That's the strategy"

2022-01-05T16:12:00.001-05:00

It isn't the virus, it isn't the vaccine (I hope), it is the leaders of the so called Western Democracies obsession with vaccination that scares me. 
Why are these leaders so belligerently obsessed with vaccinating every person in their nation(s)? Spare me  the idea that they care about the unvaccinated, their attitude and scorn towards their unvaccinated citizens is manic. Since we know the vaccinated are  susceptible to contracting and passing on the virus, their truly is very little epidemiological difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. In fact the shear number difference of the vaccinated over the unvaccinated insures that they are spreading the virus more than the unvaccinated. If tomorrow everyone was vaccinated, the transmission of the virus would not really change. Despite all the ridicule, the unvaccinated are not really "clogging" up the hospitals, there are more vaccinated patients in hospitals now than unvaccinated. In fact the mandates requiring health workers be vaccinated is doing far more harm to the nation's healthcare system than the unvaccinated. 
Deaths, well, it is, after all, their life. People gamble with their life all the time and with far worse odds.
Yet the leaders, and I'm talking about the elected heads of state here, are obsessed with vaccinating every last citizen, why? And if they can't get them vaccinated they are trying to make them outcasts, why? After all the unvaccinated are truly not hurting anyone, except perhaps (doubtful) themselves. So why the obsession? In fact the various mandates, rules, regulations, forced acceptance by private industries, is doing far more damage to society including over all public health than the unvaccinated ever could. In fact I would say they are in the process of destroying society...to save it? 
Emmanuel Macron denounced France's 5 million unvaccinated as "non-citizens" and vows: "I really want to piss them off. And so we will continue to do so, to the bitter end. That's the strategy." 
(Le Parisien)
BIDEN: "This continues to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated." 
Biden told parents to not let their children play with kids who aren't vaccinated. "And for parents with kids too young to be vaccinated, surround your kids with people who are vaccinated," 
Why?
 Every possible reason I can think of for their actions is far more frightening than covid.

PREDICTION

2021-11-17T16:31:00.001-05:00

They (the CDC) is going to change the way they count Covid deaths.
 
BTW, have you ever wondered why they wait two weeks after final shot for you to be considered "fully" vaccinated? The reason given was that it takes two weeks for the vaccine to fully prime your immune system against the virus. Now we know that fully vaccinated people can still contract and infect others with the virus, regardless of the two weeks. The question then becomes is there significant events that can happen and are not being recorded or being reported differently in that two week period? What about the booster? Will there be a "grace period" for the booster as well? The only reason for a booster is to "prime" you immune system again because the original shots did not, in fact, make you immune. What the vaccine did do was destroy the anti-bodies you may have had from a previous infection of covid. 