The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

The headlines are rampant, claiming things like, “Elite K-8 School Teachers White Students They’re Born Racist.”  Even the liberal parents are alarmed at this rampant violation of reality.

“Administrators at the Bank Street School for Children on the Upper West Side claim it’s a novel approach to fighting discrimination, and that several other private New York schools are doing it.”

Sorry, but the “everyone’s doing it” excuse has never been accepted by school officials for any wrongdoing in the past, and We the People DO NOT ACCEPT this as an excuse for the flagrantly stupid behavior by these school administration “officials.”  Quite frankly, this sounds far more like a case of “let’s try shoving our extremist agenda down America’s throats through their children by hiding behind the title of ‘school administration official.’ ”

In fact, their behavior is nothing less than flagrantly criminal, violating at least three sections of my own state’s education law, and at least one section that I was able to find of the state law in which this incident occurred.

My only question is:  “Why aren’t these people being arraigned on felony charges as we speak?”

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt’s book, “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” is an exceptionally well-researched and rock-solid expose’ of the incredible yet alarmingly successful attempts by various fascist-socialist “social engineers” to train our children to become their servants.

Quite frankly, it will indeed make you sick to your stomach, because it’s largely become true.  Put simply, these interlopers of foreign ideology have undermined our national sovereignty and prepared our children to become dumbed-down vassals of the “new world order” in much the same way the Nazi’s hoodwinked an entire generation of Germany’s youth to do their bidding.

This book, fully 17 years old, clearly identifies the varies “crises” we have seen, used as the socio-fascist’s primary tool to advance their agenda forward by offering radical reforms offered to the public as the means to “fix the crisis.”  Their plan is for their reforms to temporarily fix the crisis, at which a new crisis is invented, requiring new reforms, until before you know it, we wake up in a nation that is no longer the United States of America, but a socio-fascist reformation of what we used to be, and a very dim and dark one at that.

I THANK GOD!  I thank God that America has WOKEN UP.  We the People tossed the Republican muscle to the curb and said, “HELL NO, we’re going to elect our OWN candidate,” and we did.

His name is Donald J. Trump.

In the meantime, the powers that be who are trying to spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity solely so they can rake their cut off the top of our tireless efforts while they bask in one vacation spot after another continues to move forward at an ever-increasing pace.  Although I’m a staunch supporter of Trump, I cannot honestly say Trump is beyond circumspect.

I can say, however, that I so much greatly favor trump, a man whom I have followed in both word and deed since the mid-80s as a student of business, over Hillary Clinton, and for one simple reason:  He has, thousands of times over, proven himself to be a man of integrity and honor through and through in countless public spotlights ranging from media to governmental, whereas Clinton has proven herself to be precisely the same individual who was FIRED from the Watergate investigations for gross violations of ethics, a pattern of behavior which has NEVER changed in 46 years.

Key Speeches and Excerpts from the 2016 Republican National Convention

Alternative Title:  2016 RNC Key Speeches and Excerpts

First, Melania Trump:
Second, Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani:

Third, Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., Milwaukee Country, Wisconsin:

Antonio Sabato, Jr.

More to come, along with key details and notes.

Also, when the heinously anti-American left libtards and Demoncraps come-a-slinging, we will post their filth, too, along with cross-links, detailed summaries, full-length videos (always sourced elsewhere), and various commentaries designed to seek truth, right wrongs, expose the filth and lies, and help restore the United States of America back on it’s rightful tack/track.  Which one that is, tack or track, depends on whether you’re a sailor or one of the other branches of service.  🙂

Artists vs Scientists – A Matter of Degrees

I recently read that Debra Messing, 47, and a person with some serious degrees, said, “You know, I’m a public person and if I put myself out on a platform like Twitter, I’m basically saying you’re allowed to express your opinion about me or my position politically, socially, whatever, but that does not extend to children. If she’s experiencing [shaming], then I support her.” “

I cannot begin to tell you how much I, as a parent, agree with Debra’s “hands-off” attitude towards our children.  In fact, as all good federal laws should always be geared towards protecting We the People, there ought to be a federal law against any mention of a person’s children without express written consent in any medium, including but not limited to written (handwriting, print, and press), audio (to numerous to mention by name), visual (again, to numerous to mention by name), tactile (Braille), or ANY other media, including telepathy (should it ever be proven to be true).  There are indeed some laws to that extent, but we don’t need more.  What we need are effective and all-encompassing i.e. zero loopholes.

Again, while looking into this matter, I found it refreshing that one of my favorite actresses in successes like Prey, The Mysteries of Laura, and Will & Grace, shares the same parental concerns over our family and friends.

Unfortunately, she recently twittered “she’s not afraid to speak out in support of Hillary Clinton,” apparently without any knowledge or acceptance of Hillary Clinton’s fifty-year history of so flagrantly violating the law that no law-enforcement agency in this country would ever endorse her from a collective per-agent point of view.  Thus, despite her correct stance on protecting the privacy of our children, she remains a blithering idiot, almost certainly due to willful ignorance, when it comes to “the state of our world” in general, and Hillary Clinton in specific.

This brings up the obvious question as to the differences between degrees in arts and degrees in science.  The reason I put the issue in these terms involves the fact that she and I both have had successful careers, we both have advanced degrees, and we both have graduated at the top of our classes.  Although I acted in a play in sixth grade, my interest in the arts is largely relegated to passive observation.  Yes, I have won a couple of very minor awards in photography, both on a local level.  I have also won several not-so-minor awards in writing, at both state and national levels, and in such ways that not merely won the award, but blew the competition to smithereens, according to the awarding authority (although in different terms i.e. ‘he so greatly surpassed not only his previous entry but that of all other entries that…’)

“During her high school years, [Debra Messing] acted and sang in a number of high school productions at East Greenwich High School…” While that’s excellent preparation for a role in inciting the audience’s imagination in both fiction and historical fact (Daniel Day Lewis’ performance in Lincoln comes to mind), it’s not exactly a stellar preparation for understanding all the ins and outs of the real world i.e. law, human resource management, leadership, accounting, finance, economics, research and statistics, operations management, marketing, and strategic planning, war, history, and international relations.

She achieved a Bachelor of Arts from Brandeis University in Liberal Arts, with “at least three-quarters of her courses not theater-related” by request of her parents. Well, good for them!  Even so, a liberal arts degree touches on at least some basic math and science issues, with elements of history, government, and political “science.” However, it doesn’t get into the meat of anything like accounting and finance, much less engineering and physics.  Degrees are stamped with “bachelor of science” for a reason.   They do not prepare you for entertaining the world.  They DO, however, help prepare you for understanding it in a comprehensive manner capable of changing things for the better.  Still, Messing graduated summa cum laude from her undergraduate program, the same as I did from my latest masters of science program.  So, with that in mind, we continue:

Messing gained admission to the elite Graduate Acting Program at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts which accepts about 15 new students annually. She earned a Master of Fine Arts after three years.”  She did not, however, graduate with honors from her masters program, at least from what I can ascertain.  Regardless, she did an absolutely outstanding job of being accepted and graduating from a top Fine Arts school, the New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts, “which accepts about 15 new students annually.”

That’s saying something!  Dang!  Even if she graduated summa cum laude in her bachelor’s program, that’s not an automatic in with Tisch, so graduating with an MFA from Tisch definitely proves her mettle in the world of fine arts.

However, it’s still an MFA, “a creative degree usually awarded as a terminal degree in visual arts, creative writing, graphic design, photography, filmmaking, dance, theatre, other performing arts—or in some cases, theatre management or arts administration. Coursework is primarily of an applied or performing nature with the program often culminating in a major work or performance.”

It is by no means worse than a Master of Science. It is, however, vastly different, and the two degrees focus on entirely differently realms.

A Master of Science focuses on measurable, verifiable data, facts, and rigorous analysis using widely proven and accepted principles in various fields of study, while opening the door wide to study of phenomena not yet well understood, or even known.

A Master of Arts, on the other hand, focuses on manipulating the wide variety of communicative channels to evoke either an emotional response from an audience.  As with the Master of Science, there is always room to push the boundaries of the art, frontiers in the many ways creativity is communicated to an audience.

Put another way…

Masters of Science: After communicating the nature of the investigative query, along with the tools, techniques, and procedures thereof, the author presents his or her findings in a manner consistent with well-known and well-established parameters.  If such a foundation does not yet exist with respect to the issue at hand, the graduate pushes on into the PhD world, properly crafting a study designed to fully examine the issue within the bounds of available resources, obtaining the requisite support and funding, proceeding on the appropriate course of study, and concluding said study within the scope of of the project or program while having fully formulated a detailed and well-articulated paper for review by peers, an executive summary for review by those who commissioned the study and those with a vested interest.  Following substantiation, the investigator will have prepared one or more papers for mass dissemination, written so as to explain issues in a manner not readily discernible to an individual not possessing the requisite background in math, science, or both.

As for a Masters of Arts degree, I do not have one, so I will not attempt to explain it’s approach for the enlightenment of humankind.

Bottom line, while Debra Messing’s degrees, honors level, skills, and intelligence make her exceptionally well-qualified for the focus of her degree — entertainment — they do not readily translate into an ability to understand, much less recommend, the way a government or its people should run a country. In fact, I continually find myself at odds with otherwise very bright individuals who nevertheless possess sub-qualifying levels of both education and experience in the disciplines previously mentioned about five paragraphs up. What I find is that these bright, creative people wind up attempting to reinvent the wheel in various idealistic ways simply because they do not possess either the education or the experience to understand why those of us who do possess both the education and experience abandoned that tack long ago.

A for effort, to be sure.  However, Job’s Rule applies:

Then Job replied to the Lord:  “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.
“You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you shall answer me.’
My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”

Thirty Years of a 0.96 deg F Temp Increase – WHY? Not CO2…

How hotter is it these days than thirty years ago? Fortunately, the U.S. Air Force Academy airfield keeps good records. 🙂
Short answer: Not much.
Details: On average, the daily highs are 3.47 degrees warmer, while the daily average is just 0.96 degrees warmer, and the lows are 1.61 degrees cooler.
Now, before the AGW theorists go bonkers, let’s examine WHY. Specifically, let’s examine the effects of humidity on both overall temperature as well as temperature swings. We will also examine the effects of visibility, as that’s a reflection of the overall particulate matter in the atmosphere.
Generally speaking, the greater the humidity, the lower the peak temperature, the higher the minimum temperature, and the lower the temperature swings between peak and minimum throughout a 24 hour cycle. This is because humidity does two things: First, it attenuates incoming infrared radiation during the day by scattering, keeping things slightly cooler. Second, it attenuates escaping infrared radiation during the night by scattering, acting as a black to keep things warmer. We see this most clearly in the wide temperature swings, often 50 deg F, in dry, desert climates such as the Mojave Desert as compared to the relatively moderate swings of 15-20 deg F in very humid climates of Florida and Louisiana.
Second, particulate matter has a known cooling effect. The was well demonstrated during the two years following the Mount Pinatubo and Mount St. Helens eruptions, and was quite measurable. The key point to remember, however, is that the color and location of the particulars plays different roles. If the particulars are dark, like soot, and remain close to the Earth’s surface, they will have an overall heating effect. Light-colored particulates high in the atmosphere, such as those present following volcanic eruptions, reflect more solar irradiance back into space, thereby cooling the planet.
Finally, there’s the issue of contrails, which are nothing more than condensed particles of water. During the days following 9/11, when the U.S. fleet of aircraft was grounded for several days, the presence of both contrails and contrail-produced clouds was non-existent, and the results were startling: Severe clear and substantial cooling.
With this in mind, here are the results, expressed in the average daily difference:
Temp – Highs: 3.47 deg F
Temp – Avg: 0.96
Temp – Lows: -1.61
Humidity – Highs: 17.27%
Humidity – Avg: 9.5%
Humidity – Lows: -1.39%
Visibility – Highs: -4.09 miles
Visibility – Avg: -3.01
Visibility – Lows: 1.22
Wind – Highs: 3.26 mph
Wind – Avg: 1.41
Wind – Lows: 5.34
Precip: 0.087 in
First, let’s dispense with the precipitation: The difference is below the threshold of statistical significance.
Second, the Humidity is markedly higher with a correspondingly marked reduction in visibility. That is normal for more humid environments.
Third, the overall temperatures temperatures are higher. This, too, is strongly consistent with increased humidity. One anomaly is an increase in the day-night spread, contraindicated by an increase in humidity.
Fourth, the winds are significantly higher, 1.41 mph on average, but with markedly higher increases in the 2015-2016 year than from 1985-1986 in both the peaks (3.26 higher) and lows (5.34 mph higher). This means that the atmosphere overall is definitely more turbulent. The slight increase in temperature alone, however, simply cannot account for the significant increase in wind, and that increase is well beyond mere statistical variability. Something else is driving the winds.
The question is whether or not the reduced visibility is solely caused by humidity or by particulate matter. The key indicator here is the temperature. If it were caused by particulate matter such as the type released by volcanic eruption, the temperature would be reduced. However, we find this is not the case. Second, both aircraft and cars produce a lot less soot these days than they did in the mid-1980s, Third, increased winds do lead to both increased particulates in the lower atmosphere, as well as reduced visibility. This leads me to believe the greatest component of the reduced visibility is a combination of increased humidity, which is at least partially responsible for the greater overall temperature, as well as wind-borne dust and dirt, which causes a slight increase in temperature due to its close proximity to the ground. Increased urban sprawl also leads to increased temperatures.
Thus, we’re left with the anomaly, the increase in day-night temperature spread, contraindicated by an increase in humidity. At least part of this can be explained by the decreased biodiversity in our increasingly managed forests. Rich undergrowth moderates humidity levels through moisture sequestration and transpiration, while simultaneously resulting in an overall cooling effect due to the transformation of the sun’s energy into even more vegetation, while shading the ground from direct solar heating.
Bottom line: CO2 is NOT the culprit. If anything it’s merely an indicator of the significantly reduced sub-canopy forest vegetation due to over-harvesting of our forests, combined with urban sprawl, increased humidity, and ground-level particulate matter stirred up by winds.

2016 Dallas Police Officer Shootings and the DoJ’s Culpability

If the leader of a white supremacist group urged whites to kill all black men and their families, the media and the DoJ would be all over it. They would have a field day investigating that individual and pulling out all stops to crucify them in full view of the public.
So why isn’t the DoJ investigating Farrakhan, Malik Shabazz (the former NBP leader, pictured below), Hashim Nzinga (the current NBP leader), the three founders of Black Lives Matter (Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi), and it’s current “key people,” Shaun King? Why does Loretta Lynch investigate Beyonce’ as an accessory because her social media post incited the murders of eleven officers in Texas?
Here’s a thought: Obama’s and Lynch’s heinous, gross, and flagrantly preferential treatment of blacks over whites clearly and undeniably indicates THEY are the racists, the bigots who believe blacks are better than other races merely because of the color of their skin. THEY are the abusers of the system, the prejudiced, close-minded people who are intolerant and even hostile to different social groups other than their own.
Dear Obama, Lynch, NBP, and BLM: Blacks are NOT a different race. We are all of ONE race, with full interbreeding capability. No finer example of the “one race” theory exists than Obama himself, born of a very black father and a very fair-skinned mother. Aside from the obvious defect of his decision-making processes, Obama is a normal human being, half-white, half-black.
We have laws in this country for a reason, Attorney General Lynch. It is not up to you to decide against whom they’re applied. They apply equally, too all, regardless of the color of their skin. When blacks incite other blacks to kill whites, you hold them accountable. We do not operate on a system of placation. Rather, the United States of America is a Republic. It was built with a system of justice designed to hold accountable people like the aforementioned criminal suspects, including Beyonce’.
Announcing investigations into possible civil rights violations while ignoring incites of rioting that lead to the 2016 shooting of Dallas Police Officers is the “politically correct” PROBLEM that’s destroying our nation.
America doesn’t need political correctness. It needs JUSTICE, including the Department of Justice to DO ITS JOB, namely, to BE responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, equally and fairly, without ANY consideration of the color of a person’s skin.  

The only reason we see an resurgence of violence from blacks and Muslims is because they think they’re protected.  They think they can get away with it.

If you’re going to be hammering whites for civil rights violations, Ms. Lynch, you had damned well better be hammering people of ALL colors for violating the civil rights of others.  You can being by investigating Beyonce’ for her post on social media that directly contributed to Micah Zavier Johnson’s state of mind at the end of the Black Lives Matters protest.  While you’re at it, investigate what was said by the leaders of that protest.  As a reminder of what you’re dealing with, let’s review the facts, as clearly stated and abundantly referenced on Wikipedia:

1.  Investigators have found no ties between Johnson and international terrorist or domestic extremist groups.[32]

2.  However, an investigation into his online activities uncovered his “interest” in black nationalist groups.[35] Johnson’s now-deactivated Facebook page showed that he had “liked” the pages of black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, and also posted critiques against white people.[5][31] According to community activist Quanell X, Johnson had been a member of the New Black Panther Party chapter in Houston for six months.[39] A profile photo depicted Johnson raising his arm in a Black Power salute, along with images of a Black Power symbol and a flag associated with the Pan-Africanism movement.[5][35]  Another black nationalist organization Johnson followed was the African American Defense League, whose leader, Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere, called for the murders of police officers across the U.S. following the fatal 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald.[35] Following the police killing of Alton Sterling, Millere had posted a message encouraging violence against police.[36]

Naturally, this begs the question:  What MORONS failed to find ties between Johnson and international terrorist or domestic extremist groups?  When Lei-Millere called for the murders of police officers across the U.S., THAT’S DOMESTIC EXTREMISM.  When Malik Shabazz said “it’s time to finish the mission” and called for the killing of whites, THAT’S DOMESTIC EXTREMISM.

If you’re worried about civil rights violations, Ms. Lynch, you should focus on the 11 officers who lost their right to life, along with their families, who lost their rights to husbands/wives and fathers/mothers for no other reason than the blacks you’re protecting called for their deaths and incited one individual to carry it out.

YOU are just as culpable as Beyonce’.  Take responsibility for your OWN actions, Ms. Lynch, and RESIGN.

Hillary’s E-mail Server Crimes – In Perspective

I would like to put this into perspective… Years ago, during our final phase in Navigator Training, one young Second Lieutenant was caught removing information classified as Secret from the building. The Air Force had invested a full year into his training, at a constant dollar (adjusted for inflation) cost to the American taxpayers of approximately $1.6 million. He could have been court-martialed, convicted of felonious violations of federal law, and sentenced to prison.

The nature of the circumstances, however, did not involve espionage. Rather — EXACTLY like Clinton — it merely involved the issue of convenience. He was relocating the classified information from an authorized location (the secure facility in which it was kept and where students had access and were able to study it) to his barracks, where he intended to study it in preparation for a test. He was was unceremoniously stripped of all rank and booted out of the Air Force, never to return to any position in any of the Armed Forces, and an appropriate red flag was entered into his permanent FBI file, which would probably prevent him from ever obtaining a security clearance for the remainder of his natural life.

That’s the appropriate response for mishandling information that is classified as “Secret.”

“Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause “serious damage” to national security.”

Hillary, Clinton, however, committed far more serious crimes. Not only was the information Top Secret (a whole other level altogether), but it was also SCI (more on this, below). Furthermore, both her and her aids were fully briefed on the proper handling of departmental e-mail and classified information. She KNEW that creating a home server was huge, massive No-No, but she did so anyway. Finally, her server was hacked, not once, but several times, resulting in the leak of TS/SCI material.

Now, follow this conversation:

Rep. Will Hurd: The former Secretary of State had an unauthorized server — those are your words — in her basement, correct?

FBI Director Comey: Correct.

Hurd: Who was protecting that information? Who was protecting that server?

Comey: Well not much. There was a number of different people who were assigned as administrators of the server.

Hurd: And at least 7 email chains, or 8, that was classified as TS/SCI?

Comey: Correct.

Clinton had access to Top Secret information and beyond, specifically, information classified as “SCI,” which stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information.”

“Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.”

“Sensitive compartmented information (SCI) is a type of United States classified information concerning or derived from sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes. All SCI must be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence.”

When then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elected to receive, store, and transmit both Secrete and Top Secrete-SCI information on her personal server, in direct violation of the formal access control system requirements established by the Director of National Intelligence, she MOST CERTAINLY committed a crime, a FELONY, in fact, and one punishable by YEARS in prison. I know that. You know that. We the People know that. Yet Washington thinks it can just get away with flagrantly lying to the American People.

No. In fact, NO WAY.

Then there’s the matter of her willful and flagrant violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071, an act which requires none of the slippery “intent” and “gross negligence” requirements in order to send her to prison for three years and bar her from holding any public office — including the presidency — for life.

The fact that the FBI admitted that Hillary Clinton committed such heinous and felonious behavior while simultaneously recommended no charges against her could only be the result of one of two things:

1. They’re unbelievably incompetant and should be immediately disbaned en toto.


2. They were ordered to do so by their boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, head of the U.S. Department of Justice, their boss’ boss, Barack Obama, Usurper in Chief of the White House, or both.

I seriously doubt it’s the former, and strongly recommend Congress latch on to this incredibly display of gross disdain for our national security and the system of justice that protects it, and throw Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton in prison.


Orlando Shooting SHOULD Have Been Stopped

It is highly unlikely the Orlando shooting could have been prevented.  Even though the perpetrator had caught the attention of the FBI, so have tens of thousands of other people.  Out of all of these “possibles,” however, only a tiny fraction are ever moved up to “probables,” and only a small fraction of those ever go on to commit a crime.  Sometimes, the FBI’s hard work pays off, and they stop bad things before they happen, catching, for example, a bomb-maker in the act of making their bomb.
That, however, is the exception, rather than the rule.
In fact, most people who commit shooting sprees have never appeared on the FBI’s radar.  What the FBI cannot do is put the 99%+ of their “possibles” who would never have gone on to commit a crime behind bars.  “But we can deny them guns, right?”  Legally, yes.  Realistically, no.  Furthermore, that act alone may be what sends them over the edge, either from “possible” to “probable,” or worse, from either category to the category perpetrator.
The level of heinous behavior that deprives the innocent (until proven guilty) of their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, is relegated to totalitarian governments such as existed under Hitler and Stalin.  Not only is fundamentally opposed by freedom-loving people throughout the world, but it flat out does not work.  I, for one, am sick and tired of watching brain-dead idealists impose “solutions” that miss by a mile while depriving honest, law-abiding American citizens their God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.
Meanwhile, it remains highly doubtful the Orlando shooting could ever have been prevented.  It most certainly could, however, and should have been stopped.
The problem with the Orlando shooting wasn’t that the perpetrator was armed.  That is simply not a viable, achievable objective, and countries which try wind up leaving most of their citizenry in an unarmed, defenseless state.
The problem with the Orlando massacre is that of the more than 300 Americans who were present, NONE of them were armed. If only ONE American citizen attending the event had armed, they could have taken out the mass shooter.  If five had been armed, they almost certainly would have taken out the mass shooter.

This situation has been repeated time and time again throughout all mass shootings, including Orlando, Virginia Tech, Newtown, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Aurora. In every instance, not ONE of the intended victims was armed.  

Being unarmed in the presence of a mass shooter DOES NOT WORK.  Just look what happened in Norway:  One mass shooter.  Seventy-seven dead.  Why?  Because not a single one of the victims and many more people subject to Breivik’s attacks were armed.  They were unarmed.  They were defenseless, and they suffered the worst fate because of it.  

If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.  

How many more wake-up calls must we suffer before those in power actually wake up and smell the coffee?  Before they realize that disarming the populace has ALWAYS resulted in a significant increases in violent crime?

Being unarmed DOES NOT WORK, America.

It doesn’t work in America.  It doesn’t work in Norway.  It doesn’t work in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and northern Cameroon, where Boko Haram have killed 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes.  It did not work in Nazi Germany, when Hitler largely disarmed the general populace, restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit” i.e. card-carrying members of the Nazi Party.  Disarmament has not worked in the United Kingdom, where violent crime rose 250% after they disarmed the general populace.  Sure, it reduced firearm murders, but what Piers Morgan and the others refuse to tell you is that the overall murder rate increased.

An armed populace, however, does work.  During the last thirty years, firearms laws have been relaxed in nearly every state.  Also during that time, crime has dropped —  a lot — but the drop always followed the relaxation of firearms laws.

The trend in gun control relaxation began in the mid-1980s, but the overall trend in violent crime peaked around 1991, from nearly 800 per 100,000 population to less than 400 per 100,000.  That’s half, a huge reduction, throughout which firearms laws continued to be relaxed.  Put simply, the relaxation of gun control laws resulted in more American citizens being armed.  As a direct result, violent crime is about half of what it is today as compared to thirty years ago.

Being unarmed has never worked.  It never will.  Disarming Americans is a direct violation of our God-given, Constitutionally supported and protected rights.  Our Founding Fathers established the Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for outstanding reasons, most notably of which is that a well-armed populace is the best deterrent against criminal activity.

Armed American citizens are the solution.  Just look at the attempted Islamic mass shooting at the Mohammed cartoon event in Texas. Result: The two mass shooters were STOPPED.  They were SHOT DEAD, most notably, before they were able to fire into the crowd of attendees. As disquieting as this may sound to some, if they had not been stopped via armed intervention, there were some 200 people attending the event who would have suffered grievous harm if not death.  Many would have been killed.  Many more would have been injured.  All would have been emotionally scarred for life.
Various opinions claiming “armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting” appear after every mass shooting.  They largely stem from a false claim made on the Mother Jone’s website just after the Newtown massacre.  Their “study” claims that out of 62 of the mass shootings that occurred over the last 30 years (1982-2012), “in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
There are two glaring problems with Mother Jones’ “study.”
First, when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before it becomes a mass shooting.  The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no cooling-off period between the murders.  A mass shooting, on the other hand, simple involves multiple victims of gun violence.  However, the U.S. Congressional Research Service has adopted the FBI definition for mass murder.
Second, whatever criteria Mother Jones used in their “study” has failed the reality test.  In fact, there have been twelve mass shootings stopped in their tracks by armed U.S. citizens:
1. Pearl High School:  Perpetrator Luke Woodham opened fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others before being stopped by Assistant Principle Joel Myrick with his .45 caliber handgun.  Myrick lost valuable time responding because he was forced to retrieve his firearms from his vehicle due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
2. Parker Middle School:  The 14-year-old perpetrator opened fire at a high school dance, killing one teacher, wounding another teacher and two students.  James Strand, the owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held stopped the shooter when he confronted him with his shotgun.
3. Appalachian School of Law:  The perpetrator killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student, wounding three others, before being stopped by an armed law student, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, and an off-duty police officer.  All three lost valuable time responding because they were forced to retrieve their firearms from their vehicles due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
4. New Life Church:  The perpetrator killed two members of the church, wounding 3, before being stopped by Jeanne Assam with her personal concealed firearm.  The perpetrator fired at her, missing her.  She returned fire, stopping the perp.
5. New York Mills AT&T Store:  The perpetrator fired inside the store.  Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and stopped the gunman, killing him before he could murder the list of employees he planned to kill as he’d written on the list he was carrying with him.  Only one employee was wounded.
6. Sullivan Central High School:  The perpetrator entered the high school, but was stopped at gunpoint by a school resource officer and held for ten minutes.  When the perpetrator started firing, he was shot and killed.  No others were harmed.
7. Freewill Baptist Church:  The perpetrator pulled a shotgun from his truck and approached the church.  Aaron Guyton, the pastor’s grandson, spotted him and locked the doors.  After the perp kicked in the doors, Guyton stopped him, holding him at gunpoint while two members of the church took him to the ground.
8. Clackamas Town Center Mall:  The perpetrator opened fire in the busy food court, killing two people and seriously wounding a third before being stopped by Nick Meli who drew his own firearm on the gunman, when then retreated and killed himself.
9.  Mystic Strip Club:  The perpetrator entered the club and opened fire, wounding one bouncer and a waitress.  The other bouncer stopped the perp by drawing his own handgun and killing him.
10. Austin, Texas Construction Site:  The perpetrator irately opened fire on his co-workers.  The foreman stopped the perp when he opened fire on him.  Only the perp and the foreman were injured.
11. Cache Valley Hospital:  The perpetrator entered the hospital and began making demands while holding two handguns.  When the perp racked the slid on one of his handguns, he was stopped by two corrections officers who shot him dead.
12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital:  The perpetrator, a patient at the psychiatric hospital, killed his caseworker and wounded his doctor.  The doctor stopped the shooter by drawing his concealed handgun and shooting the perp dead.
In any given year, armed U.S. citizens stop anywhere between 650,000 and 800,000 crimes.  Many of those are violent crimes.  Some of those involved armed shooters.  We will probably never fully know just how many of those perpetrators would have created another mass shooting had they not been stopped by an armed U.S. citizen.
When well-meaning but idealistic and/or delusional idiots establish so-called “gun-free zones,” those zones become a hotspot for violence and aggression, a favorite target of the criminally insane.  More than three-fourths of all mass shootings this century have occurred in gun-free zones, despite the fact that such zones occupy way less than 10% of the places frequented by the people.
The solution to this madness is clear:  Stop establishing “gun-free zones.”  Even in countries where “everyone is disarmed,” there ain’t no such animal.  The idea that disarmament will keep people safe is repeatedly proven as fiction, and dangerous fiction, at that.
Our Founding Fathers wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” into the U.S. Constitution for a REASON, people. It was to keep blithering idiots from stripping Americans of the ability to DEFEND themselves.

A Final Word on Global Warming

I don’t know if we’ll ever put the global warming/climate change/extreme blah blah argument to rest. Unfortunately, far too many people are arguing on the side of funding rather than the side of science.
The graphic below, however, reveals something rather startling. It is a composite of two different graphs.  Please click on it to see a full-sized version.
global war,omgThe first graph in the upper left shows the AGT (average global temperature) between the present and 2.4 mya (million years ago). As you can see, prior to about 30 mya, Earth was far warmer than it is today. In fact, normal temperatures remained above 70 deg F, while ice age temperatures dipped to around 50 deg F.
Given the age, however, the data was not very fine-grained, meaning that ice-age temperatures could easily have dipped down to what they have been over the last 0.5 mya (500 thousand years), ranging between 20 deg F and roughly 35 deg F.
The graph in the upper left is roughly a thousand times greater scale than the other two graphs. The red lines from the bottom graph show just how much smaller the more recent 450 thousand years in the other two graphs than the long-term, 2.4 billion year graph in the upper left.
Now here’s the interesting part: The graph on the right is properly positioned with respect to temperature. Notice the 50 deg F point on both graphs match. Thus, when the 2.4 by graph says “Ice Age” at its right, and given the glacial and interglacial temperatures on the 450,000 year graph to the right, here’s what it means:
Earth is STILL in the middle of its last ice age, some 40 deg F COLDER than the periods between ice ages.
Furthermore, current interglacial temperatures are a good 9 deg F colder than they usually are, meaning another 9 deg F increase would be entirely normal given the glacial and interglacial periods over the last half a million years, during which time both Earth and mankind has survived just fine.
By comparison, the IPCC’s “worst case” analysis and conclusion that global temperatures might exceed 6 deg F by the year 2100 is entirely within the range of “normal temperature variation,” clearly evidenced by the AGT over the last half-million years. With respect to Earth’s “normal” temperature over the last 1 billion years, however, what little global warming we might have experienced is but a tiny drop in the bucket as to 40 deg F warming trend good, old Mother Earth will toss our way if she decides to thaw us out back to Earth REAL normal temperature.
Naturally, since all climatologists already know (or should know) this information, it royally begs the question as to why they keep whining about the few puny degrees that mankind “might” add to the planet’s temperature over the next couple hundred years. Is it money? Billions of dollars in government funding can certainly provide a huge incentive for telling whoppers to the American taxpayers who fund the vast majority of those grants. Perhaps it’s a pseudo-religious belief that they’re doing something “good” for mankind, and the belief is so strong as to blind them to the truth.
Regardless, the truth remains, as clearly evidenced by Earth’s climate history:
A. As compared to Earth’s pattern of temperatures throughout it’s determinable history, we’re currently in the middle of an ice age, albeit in a relatively minor interglacial peak.
B. Temperatures could easily drop 10 deg F at any time, plunging the Earth into the deeper portion of an ice age such as the ones that carved Yosemite with deep glaciars.
C. Temperatures could also easily rise 40 or more deg F at any time, turning Greenland, Siberia, and the Yukon into the next series of tropical jungles, while turning the Congo and Amazon River basin into the next Sahara.
D. All of these possibilities are normal and natural, completely void of any human input. They have happened here on Earth multiple times in the past, completely without any input or causative factors by mankind.
E. No matter what mankind does, it won’t stop the normal, natural, and inevitable swings in Earth’s temperature. Mankind’s attempts to stop these swings is a reflection of arrogance at best, but at worst, a widespread attempt to extort (if not outright steal) vast sums of money from the hard-working people of this world.

I want to write a book – which genre is best?

The thing about categorization these days is that publishers are trending away from categorization.  Certainly some authors, like Danielle Steele, have made it big in the romance genre, which has consistently outperformed all others over the years.  

Indeed, traditional publishers have for decades forced authors to stick to one genre or another.  This had to do with the fact that editors were largely genre-specific themselves.  They were purists, and simply didn’t want to see any cross-genre copy.

Over the last three decades, however, Indie publishing has revealed that this wasn’t at all what customers wanted.  True, most readers of romance are indeed purists.  Most other readers, however, enjoy seeing multi-genre elements in their books, a fact that mainstream publishers began accepting when their own profits dried up in the recent global economic crisis while those of many Indie publishers took off.

In response, as well as due to the fact that modern editors have increasingly grown up in multi-genre environments, mainstream publishers have at least somewhat relaxed their stiff requirements that a manuscript fix neatly and squarely into the square peg hole.  Before the crash, publishers had the luxury of priding themselves on their superior sense of literary art and would eschew inputs from people like economists and marketing staff.  In reality, they understood the numbers reflecting market demands and trends, whereas publisher’s sense of “art” was often outdated by a couple of decades.  In response to the crash, the publishers that survived started listening to the numbers guys who kept telling them that books most likely to become bestsellers contained significant multi-genre elements, if not being truly multi-genre novels.  

The problem is, one cannot refer to a Top 100 Bestselling Author’s list and logically conclude that remaining true to one genre is the way to go for the simple reason that such lists were crafted by old-school publishers who forced authors to remain specific to one genre.  It’s a matter of the tail wagging the dog.  The only way to find out what people really want is to look at all sales (mainstream, Indie, and eBook), particularly sales trends, which show a relative reduction in one-genre novels and a relative climb in multi-genre novels.

Thus, even if one wants to be published by one of the mainstream publishing houses, that’s ok, as they have begun recognizing the value ($$$) of publishing books that people actually want to read vs allowing editors to straight-jacket authors into single-genre pigeonholes.

Thus, the best answer to the question of “which genre” is “whatever genre you want, or even multiple genres.”

A New Economic Theory

Although only somewhat in jest, this article underscores the inability of some economists to predict and/or counter real-world events.
Take the event following the Global Financial Crisis, for example. I saw it coming in 2002 and sold all three of my homes in less than a year, for three simple reasons:
1. I had no idea when or how things would finally recover.
2. My next two work assignments, from Jan 2003 through March 2009 would be overseas, so my homes would be beyond my immediate control.
3. I did not have the financial resources to risk paying mortgages on two simultaneously unoccupied homes, and even the thought of letting one of them suck me dry was more than I could stomach.
Turns out it was one of the smartest decisions I have ever done.  All three homes rose only slightly higher in value until the bubble burst, then all economic planthree plunged to less than three-fourths of their peak value, and it took more than a decade before any of them recovered beyond their previous values.  In the meantime, I tripled my money in the stock market between 2008 and 2011.
Regardless, the last line of the article was a plea: “We need a new theory, not merely a new fictional acronym in the fantasy universe of mainstream economics.”
That theory was tested in the early 1980s, under Reagan. By lowering taxes, the government freed up wealth directly where it was needed the most, in the private business sector. Investments flourished. Innovation flourished. Jobs flourished. Growth flourished. Profits flourished. Savings flourished. Reinvestment flourished. The US economy flourished. The global economy flourished.
When governments increase taxes, they KILL all of the above.
How’s that for a “new theory?”