Why Democrats Oppose the Will of the People

When it comes to the will of the people, the first 60 seconds says it all:  “The majority of Americans are for tighter border control, are against allowing more LEGAL immigrants, oppose allowing ANY illegal aliens, and support defunding of sanctuary cities.” – Ingraham:  DACA detour jeopardizes GOP’s new midterm momentum

That pretty much says it all, so why are Democrats so pushy counter to the will of We the People, even to the point of resorting to deceit and outright lies? Time after time after time again, liberals are caught spinning the truth, bending the truth, and even breaking the truth, putting forth outright lies, misstatements of fact, and glaring omission of relevant facts.

Their actions, funneled largely through mainstream (liberal) media, violate every tenet of Journalistic Ethics, so why do they keep doing it?
 
It’s certainly not to “educate the people,” as lying never educated anyone. It’s certainly not the money angle, as Americans largely ditched MSNBC after Bryan William’s outright lie was highlighted after years of his nightly sessions of stretching the truth. Americans have largely ditched CNN for the same reason, flocking to Fox News simply because Fox provides countering points of view, in addition to digging up actual facts from known reliable and credible sources.
 
The only logical conclusion we have left is that journalists are either incompetent, or they’re simply pawns for the much larger mind control effort perpetrated on the American people by old money in order to do their bidding. If the latter, that would indeed make the liberals and those who vote for them the “useful idiots” spoken of throughout history.

A Simple IQ Test

When I was a child, the teachers couldn’t figure out why I never paid any attention in class.  After a couple of visits to a psychologist, and following the administration of an IQ test on which I scored 130, he confirmed I my mind was simply in 5th gear as the teacher was presenting second grade material.

In the Spring of 1985, a bunch of people were gathered on the lawn of my college apartment complex for a picnic.  I recognized a friend and stepped outside to join her for some conversation.  She said her father, one of my former professors, was holding a Mensa outreach picnic and invited me to join the group.  A couple of weeks later, I took the test, and walla!  I was in Mensa.

I have since taken a number of IQ tests such as the one below, with scores of 120, 133, 139, 140, 167, and 180+.  What’s going on?  Why the variation in scores?  Let’s take a look at an IQ test I took this morning as we examine why.

IQ Test
IQ Test

Even though I answered all questions correctly, the test shows a lower IQ than my actual IQ.  Nevertheless, it’s statistically accurate, in that there were only 20 questions.  Even though I scored a 20/20, provided the IQ test contains questions of equally distributed difficulty, one cannot say for statistical certainty that it’s any higher than 133.  There simply aren’t enough questions.  A score of 40/40 might result in an IQ score of 140; 60/60 might result in an IQ score of 150, and 100/100 questions might result in an IQ score of 160.  The more questions on the test, along with the more people tested using that particular test, then the finer the granularity with which the test can pinpoint your score.  When it comes to scores with the middle 85%, it’s probably reasonable accurate, +/- 10 to 15 points.  When it comes outliers, however, it cannot differentiate between a score of perhaps 125 and a 200, so it picks the statistical median of all scores higher than 125, which is 133.  A test with more questions would be able to pinpoint that to perhaps 128, or 132 or 150+.

The thing about it is the furthermore down or up the scale you fall, the more of an outlier of your score, then the more questions are required to definitely assess your score AND the more people have to take the test against which your performance can be measured.

With that in mind, let’s see where these scores originated:

120:  Given to me by a forensic psychologist at my request, along with a large battery of other tests, in order to determine suitability for visitation and custody during divorce proceedings.  I’d experienced severe chronic insomnia for six months straight prior to the test, and probably got all of about four hours of sleep the night before, so, no, I didn’t do very well!

133:  Score obtained by correctly answering 20 out of 20 questions.  You can take the test yourself by following the links, above.

139:  Test I took in second grade, administered by a child psychologist.  The test didn’t go any higher than 139, so 139 it was.

140:  Test I took in the Air Force, as part of a low-key study conducted by our squadron.  Again, the test didn’t go any higher.

167:  An experimental but reasonably accurate test designed to measure people with a high IQ.

180:  An actual IQ test.  The score doesn’t go any higher.  I think I was lucky, as I was feeling exceptionally well-rested and alert that day!

So, what’s my actual IQ?  Well, it’s certainly higher than 120, that’s for certain.  I believe it’s higher than 139/140, as those were my scores — and the top score — on two standard IQ tests widely used and accepted throughout the arena of psychology.  I’m reasonably sure it’s higher than 150, as I did become a member of Mensa.  I think it may be as high as 180 on my best days, when I’m firing on all 100 billion neurons.

However, given more than half a century of experience interacting with other people, I’m inclined to believe I have an IQ of 167 +/-15 pts.  Again, while it’s relatively easy to pinpoint an IQ ranging in the middle 83% of the pack, between 80 and 120, the further out you go in either direction, the more difficult it is to accurately determine one’s IQ score.

If you want to take either a short or a long free online Stanford-Binet IQ test, click here.  For kicks and grins, just to see what a really low score might feel like, I took the long test of 100 questions, randomly answering at least 3 out of 4 questions, and only thinking about the ones where I liked the way the question looked.  If it looked like I might have to think about it, I skipped it.  My score put me in the 83rd percentile, which corresponds to an IQ of about 116.

Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes – Cheaper and Better Than Traditional Construction

Traditional builders continue to reject and exclude both Tiny Homes (usually built by their owners) and 3D Printed Homes from within city tiny homelimits, citing all sorts of made-up CRAP, including FALSELY claiming the technology is “immature” and “won’t hold up over time” or “under severe tiny home - cottageweather conditions.”

I think Traditional Builders are DINOSAURS and it’s high time cities give their equity-robbing souls THE BOOT.

In FACT, 3D printed homes correct many of the problems associated with traditional homes, including avoidance of materials that warp and degrade over times. Unlike traditional homes, their shapes are highly resistant to wind, are far stronger than traditional construction, and far less expensive.

In FACT, Tiny Homes solve many of the problems encountered with mobile tiny home homes, most notably, cost and resale value, as a good Tiny Home costs, on average, about a third the cost of a mobile home, and they’re being resold for two to three times the cost of materials used in their construction.

Smaller? Yes. However, they do NOT waste space, as do traditional homes. They’re far cheaper, stronger, more unique, more comfortable, and generally a HUGE step in the right direction.

What do you think about Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes?

Discrimination vs the Free Exercise of Religion

I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
 
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.
 
Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.
 
There is a vast difference between refusing to serve customers because of discrimination and refusing to use one’s skills and resources to promote, exalt, or endorse a message that violates one’s free practice of their religion.
 
Liberals, mudstream media, and the Democrats refuse to consider the fact these are separate issues because they’re trying to use one issue — discrimination — to force artisans of all types into promoting behavior which violates their religious convictions.
 
Our First Amendment, however, very specifically protects those religious convictions where it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
 
The free exercise of one’s religion usually requires its adherents to say, “No” to a great many things this world claims are OK and even glorifies. Indeed, our Ten Commandments contain 8 negatives and only 2 affirmations. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” – James 1:27
 
Our First Amendment protects our right to freely exercise our religion. Our religion specifically requires us to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world. Being forced to incorporate messages or images into our creative works violates the very foundations of our religion and as such our government is expressly forbidden from forcing that upon us.
 
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
 
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.
 

Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.

And Courts, stop allowing these lawsuits.  They’re both frivolous and injurious to the entire system of jurisprudence.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Baker’s Right to Freely Exercise Religion

 
“In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker — while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.”
 
The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with refusing service to othersexuals. The maker said he’d bake them any other cake, and referred them to other bakers when they insisted on a gay wedding cake.
 
The issue at stake are the artisan’s First Amendment rights to freely practice their religion without being forced by government to violate their religious convictions: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.” – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
 
Those who believe it’s OK to force people to violate their religious convictions should also agree it’s OK to force a Muslim to make pork sandwiches. What’s next?  Forcing Christian photographers to film gay consummation?  Absolutely not.  Professionals have always had the right to refuse to take on certain projects.
 
By the way, “7-2” is NOT a “narrow ruling.”
 
As a Christian, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever of serving anyone of any faith (or lack thereof), race, creed, gender, or sexual persuasion. As a Christian, however, I absolutely will NEVER make a sandwich, or a cake, that in any way exalts a behavior the Bible deems as sinful.
 
I’m very glad Jack Phillips got his day in court and his decision to honor God was upheld by the highest court in our land as being the right one.
 
“Justice Kennedy has held that tolerance is a two-way street, and Jack Phillips was not tolerated by the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado” “
 
Amen, and I sincerely hope this slap in the face serves as a wake-up call both to Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission as well as our State’s many wayward legislators.
 
It would behoove both liberal groups to remember “liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome.”
 
In closing, well, Justice Kennedy said it best: “When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.”
 
Again, there’s nothing wrong with serving those who believe differently than you. There’s EVERYTHING wrong with allowing one group to dictate what and how an artisan or craftsman creates, particularly if it violates the artisan’s or craftsman’s right to freely practice their religion as protected by our First Amendment.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html

Chores

Date Assigned//Date Due//STATUS//Chore Title and Details//ET

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Work uniform in washer on Speed Wash.  Use 1/3 to 1/2 the normal level of soap.  No more.  Do it today (Sat) so your uniform can dry overnight.  Do not dry uniform in dryer.

20180524//20180525//INCOMPLETE//Insert speaker wires into black cord minder near large sliding glass door.  Ensure cord minder is flush left.  Ensure speaker wires go to right of A/C unit and a slightly taught//5 min

20180601//20180601//INCOMPLETE//Write weekly work schedule on calendar on fridge//2 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Scrub food off bean pans on stove and place into dishwasher, left bottom side//2 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Clear your own dishes from sink to dishwasher//1 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Place colas from box on table into bin in fridge//2 min

COMPLETED CHORES

Soon to be populated!

The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.
 
Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.
 
If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.
 
If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.
 
If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.
 
 
When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.
 
In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.
 
For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.
 
The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.
 
The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.
 
Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.
 
The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation: