Donald J. Trump is the only clear choice for America

Whether Male, Female, African, Caucasoid, Northeast Asia, Arctic Asia, Southeast Asia, America, or New Guinea & Australia — whatever — I do not care. All I care about is ensuring my vote goes to the most highly qualified individual who actually stands a reasonable chance of being elected.
 
The following candidates have been (1) nominated by their party for the presidency and (2) featured in at least three major national polls:
 
Donald Trump (Republican) / Mike Pence
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) / Time Kaine
Jill Stein (Green Party, formerly Democrat) / Ajamu Baraka
Gary Johnson (Libertarian, formerly Republican) / Bill Weld
 
Countless objective, professional polls taken in each state, throughout all fifty states, consistently show both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson so far back in the pack they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning even one state, much less the election. Johnson consistently receives between 1/3 and 1/15, averaging 1/6 the results of either Trump of Clinton in all states. Stein’s votes average 1/3 of Johnson’s,for about 1/18 that of either Trump or Clinton. While both are way too far behind to ever win, votes cast for them can have a significant effect on whether Trump or Clinton wins. Case in point, today’s (August 26) results for Florida, with Clinton (44%), Trump (42%), Johnson (6%), Stein (2%), and other (6%) falls smack dab along the mean.
 
Jill Stein simply isn’t qualified.  She spent her entire career as a medical doctor.  She simply does not have either the education, training, or experience running large organizations.  With just 2% of the vote, a vote for Stein is a vote tossed out the window.
Gary Johnson is certainly qualified, but again, with just 6% of the vote, you’re tossing your votes out the window with him, as well.
Put simply, votes for either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein are WASTED. They could (and should) be used to select the better of the only two individuals who can actually win the election. If you honestly feel both Trump and Clinton are equal, meaning you do not feel one or the other would be better (or worse) for our nation, then by all means vote for Stein or Johnson. Or, you could stay home and save time and gas money. But if you believe that either Trump or Clinton is significantly better (or worse) than the other, please do your civic duty and make a difference by saying so with your vote, rather than tossing it away on the already lost Johnson or Stein.
 
When all aspects of both Trump and Clinton are examined, I see only one clear path to success for America’s future, and that’s with Trump. His leadership, business skills and financial/economic acumen far exceed those of Hillary Clinton. He is clearly the only one of the two who possesses the requisite integrity required for the position. Finally, because of Clinton’s deeply soiled reputation, she will not be able to attract anyone of noteworthy capability to the various economic posts, and those she does find will almost certainly be as unscrupulous and incompetent as she’s been herself.
 
This leads me to only one clear choice for our next President of the United States, and that’s Donald J. Trump.

It’s time We the People work smarter, not harder. Begin with reality and proceed from their. If Gary Johnson were in the running, I’d have no problem voting for him. But Johnson is not in the running. Trump is. There’s far too much at stake here, namely making dang sure that Hillary doesn’t win. There’s no way in hell I will fail to cast a deciding vote on that issue by wasting it on a candidate like Johnson who doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Clinton.

Constitutional Limits on Federal Ownership of Land

Just what are the Constitutional limits on federal ownership of land?  Are they defined in the Constitution, federal law, or both?

Many Americans, including politicians in our government, are under the distinct impression that our Federal Government can use eminent domain to lay claim to whatever land and natural resources they see fit.  After all, the federal government runs the country, right?

Wrong.  That is not what the Constitution says.  In fact, it says something

quite different.

We the People run our country.  In fact, our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI), says so in its opening words, the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a m

Founding Documents
We The People – US Constitution

ore perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Each and every U.S. citizen is one of “We the People.”  We the People run our country, hence the name of this website.  This fact is thoroughly woven throughout our Constitution and its Amendments, particularly the first ten Amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, and for very good reason.

Before our Constitution was signed 1787, and even before our Declaration of Independence eleven years earlier in 1776, certain factions in our government wanted to create a strong, authoritarian government.  The problem is that such a government was reminiscent of the  Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, knowing full well that such governments strongly tend to creep towards dictatorship.  They also rejected democracy, a democratic form of government, knowing full well that when Rome allowed itself to be transformed from a republic into a democracy, its end soon followed, eventually collapsing under its own excesses.

A republic is defined as a government under the rule of law.  Because it’s principles are well-defined and codified, it tends to be far more stable than a democracy, whose principles can be changed by a single vote.  Thus, a republic works quite well.  Democracies, however, are not stable, as they’re determined by the will of the people.  When those people have either been deceived or have merely grown ignorant, the democracy is easily weakened, making it ripe for being overrun by another country, or worse, being rendering so dysfunctional that it collapses under the weight of its own excesses, inefficiencies, and corruption.  Sadly, the United States under Democrat control reflects this tendency and has become a clear and present danger to our nation, as clearly evidenced not only by our current and exorbitant level of debt, but also by the abject failure of most cities run by strongly Democrat governments.

Because our Founding Fathers were such keen students of history, knowing full well what works and what doesn’t, when these factions attempted to create a strong central government whereby states ceded most, if not all of their rights, the calmer heads crafted, “by the Unanimous Consent of the States present,” a “Constitution for the United States of America” that specifically required ratification “by three-fourths of the several states,” the same as for all Amendments (Article V).  Rhode Island, distrustful of a powerful federal government, was the only one of the thirteen original states to refuse to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  Thus, with only twelve states present, three-quarters of which equal nine, they including the following Article VII’s opening clause:  “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

Furthermore, our “country” isn’t like France, Japan, or Egypt.  By law, specifically our U.S. Constitution, the United States of America is a collection of independent states (countries) organized into a union.  The term “state” and “country” are synonymous, hence the universal terms “heads of state” and our “State Department,” both of which deal with other countries.  In fact, the word “country” is not found anywhere in our Constitution, whereas the word “state” is found 133 times.”

Much like the European Union, each U.S. state remains its own sovereign entity, have ceded only certain specific and quite limited powers to the union as a whole, under the federal government, in order to normalize activities and relations between the states, which to this day retained the vast majority of powers under each state government.

Specifically, the federal government exists solely for the purposes as given in the Preamble.

If the federal government were allowed to change its powers merely by passing a single bill, especially in a way that modified the limits established by our Constitution, then such an action would not only be inconsistent with our Constitution, but would disenfranchise our voters.  Fortunately, that’s not how our government works, or at least is supposed to work.

So…  Where does that leave us with respect to the federal ownership of land?

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress many powers.  However, when it comes to the purchasing and ownership of land, it limits the federal government’s powers quite specifically:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

Put simply:

  1.  Congress may exercise exclusive legislation over the District.
  2. The District is not to exceed exceed ten miles square.
  3. The District is to be formed by land ceded by particular states, as accepted by Congress, to become the seat of the U.S. government
  4. If Congress needs additional land, it may purchase places by the consent of the legislature of the state from which they’re being purchased
  5. The only reasons Congress may purchase such lands are for the erection of forts (Army bases), magazines (place where ammunition is stored), arsenals (place where firearms are stored), dock-yards (places where ships are stored aka “ports”), “and other needful buildings.”

NOTE:  The entire collection of Constitutionally-authorized Congressional purchases is limited to buildings and structures.

These limitations gave rise to the easy to remember moniker, “forts, ports, and ten miles square.”

While it is reasonable to extend this to Air Force bases and large ranges used for firing, bombing, and testing, Congress does not have any Federally Owned LandConstitutional authorization to buy land used for other purposes, particularly vast quantities of land as they own out west.  Furthermore, they have absolutely zero lawful authority (power) to “appropriate” (take without buying) land, as the Constitution specifically requires Congress to obtain land only if “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.”

Some people will argue that the next clause gives the federal government to expand their powers as they see fit, that doing so is in the best interests of our nation.  Again, WRONG.  Nor does the federal government have any authority to erode our rights.  The two Amendments which guarantee both of these precepts are found at the end of the Bill of Rights as stop-gap final limits on federal powers:

Amendment IX:  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In modern parlance, just because a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate right.  Furthermore, no one – not Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, nor any business, organization, entity, man, woman, or child can lawfully either deny us those rights nor even “disparage” our retention of those rights.  Disparage means “to describe (someone or something) as unimportant, weak, bad; to degrade; to lower in rank or reputation; speak slightingly about.”  These are the rights of We the People!  They’d better not attempt to degrade them.

Amendment X:  “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.”

Again, in today’s language, this simply means that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are not to be held by the federal government.  Unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states holding a specific power, such as negotiating international treaties, then that power belong to the states (NOT the feds), or the people.

Put simply, the Federal Government of the United States of America has vastly overreached the Constitutional limits of their authority.  NO land is legitimately “their land” except the buildings and structures required for forts and ports, and the ten miles square required for the seat of the U.S. government.  All other lands in these United States belong to the States or to the People.  Sometime long ago federal politicians convinced themselves that it was OK to flagrantly ignore, if not extremely violate the U.S. Constitution, and for some unfathomable reason, the American People weren’t paying attention!

Well, people of America, you’d better start paying attention now, and remind each and every member of Congress — often, as in at least once weekly — that We the People are watching, and that those who fail or refuse to do their duty, irregardless of willfulness or ignorance, to FULLY “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” most certainly WILL be ejected from office with extreme prejudice, and replaced by one of us who actually knows and follows the United States Constitution.

Rights and Powers of The People Themselves

Our Founding Fathers fully understood the nature of our God-given inalienable rights:
 
– It’s why they wrote about them in our Declaration of Independence.
 
– It’s why they enumerated some of them in our United States Constitution
 
– It’s why they specifically secured several key rights and freedoms for us in our Bill of Rights.
 
– It’s why they specifically established the retention by the people of other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, along with the reservation of powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the states and people.
 
Specifically:
 
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – Ninth Amendment
 
“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.” – Tenth Amendment
 
It’s why the courts have repeatedly (mostly) upheld our Constitutional rights, powers and freedoms, not as any sort of “favors” meted out by a “benevolent” or “indulgent” government, but as fundamental rights,powers and freedoms God Almighty fully intended to be held not by any government, but by the people themselves.

Proper Use of Voting Machines WILL Stop Election Fraud

If you were to listen to an average modern discussion about election fraud, you might only wait minutes before someone mentions “the obvious problem” and starts talking about voting machines, often citing them as a severe security risk, if not the root of all evil.  The problem of election fraud, however, existed millennia before humans first understood the nature of electricity, not to mention computers, modern election systems, and the Internet.  The fact remains that most people don’t trust voting machines because people tend not to trust that which they don’t understand.

Overview:  There are immense technical, sociological, political, and psychological hurdles which prevent individuals, society, and governments from trusting and using properly-designed electronic voting systems to eliminate election fraud.  Regardless of these hurdles, however, the fact remains that while all election systems are subject to many forms of fraud and bias, only a properly-designed electronic voting system provides the most safeguards, controls, and audit trails to minimize fraud while simultaneously providing various automated mechanisms to minimize the many biases inherent in paper-based election systems.

Before we get into the details, let’s touch on a few key concepts, namely the difference between a mere machine and a system, along with both types of voting fraud and bias which must be dealt with in any effective system.

THREE KEY CONCEPTS:

1) Machines vs Systems:  Although these two terms are related, they are not synonymous.  Not only can multiple machines be a part of a larger system, but multiple systems can be contained in a single machine.  Furthermore, for millennia various voting systems have existed comprised of nothing more complicated than a count of hands witnessed by the masses and recorded by a single numerical inscription on a piece of wood or stone.  Yet amazingly, such a simple system has many of the safeguards we seek in an electronic voting system.  We need only be able to identify what they were, what’s missing, and figure out how to safely, effectively, and securely incorporate them into our electronic system.

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole.  Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. The term system may also refer to a set of rules that governs structure or behavior.

Put simply, a system is a “black box” that accepts inputs, does various things on the inputs, and produces outputs.  The human body is a system.  A teacher’s method for determining class grades is a system.  Our national election process is a system.

A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action. Machines are usually powered by mechanical, chemical, thermal, or electrical means, and are often motorized. Historically, a power tool also required moving parts to classify as a machine. However, the advent of electronics has led to the development of power tools without moving parts that are considered machines.  Computers themselves are considered machines that process and move information.

2) Bias:  A bias results in a failure to accurately perceive reality.  It is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species.  Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.

In voting systems, the mere placement of candidates on a ballot sheet can introduce bias, with candidates listed first or higher on the sheet or monitor tending to receive more votes.  In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias is an unfair sampling of a population, or to an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.  For example, when less than the entire population votes, it introduces statistical bias that results in election results that may reflect the will of the voters, but not the will of the people as a whole.  Similarly, requiring a group of people to show their hands introduces more than one major bias with the potential to severely distort election results.

Eliminating biases is an important concept in the proper design of an election system.  However, attempts to correct biases are often fraught with complex issues, not the least of which includes one faction blaming the other of attempting to influence the election.  Generally speaking, while it’s entirely appropriate to eliminate front-end biases such as name placement on a sheet or monitor, or ensuring that all voters have reasonable access to the polls, attempting to correct even known biases after the voting has take place is usually prohibited.

Major categories of bias include cognitive bias, conflicts of interest, statistical bias, contextual bias, and prejudice.  Reducing or eliminating the many kinds of bias in an electronic voting system requires understanding the detailed and sometimes complex nature of each of dozens of specific biases.

3) Fraud:  Electoral fraud or vote rigging is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. What constitutes electoral fraud under law varies from country to country.

While bias is usually the cause of inadvertent skewing of voting results, fraud is intentional in nature, an attempt to change the outcome to reflect something other than the will of the people.  Although minimizing or eliminating election bias is desirable, it is absolutely imperative to freedom itself that nations combat fraud on all fronts.  A failure to do so results in a wide range of problems from general voter apathy to civil unrest, and if severe, has been known to result in revolution and the overthrow — if not physical elimination — of the offending government or political party engaged in fraud.

As with bias, reducing or eliminating fraud in an electronic voting system requires a thorough understanding of the many avenues through which fraud can be introduced.  Only some of these techniques are electronic in nature, while the rest involve policies, monitoring, along with the many highly effective tools, techniques and procedures developed to mitigate and even eliminate fraud.

We cannot rely on any machine to provide this protection by itself, whether that machine is a lever-pulled, chad-punching machine of paper and steel, an electronic voting kiosk, a website, or a phone app.  A properly designed, fraud and bias-mitigating electronic voting system incorporates a many-vectored, multi-layered approach combining interleaved elements of both human and computer validation, authentication, encryption, and auditing designed to both prevent fraud as well as detect any evidence of fraud both during and after the fact.  When such a system is properly designed, these complex safeguards are almost entirely transparent to the user, no more difficult than making a withdrawal from an ATM or your bank.  The system is also designed to make it very simple to be implemented by minimally trained agents in the field, essentially as simply as pulling the machines into power, then the Internet, and turning it on, much the same as one might relocate their Ooma Telo, a VoIP internet telephone, while maintaining the rigorous security protocols inherent in these devices.  Field inspectors and auditors, however, would have significantly more important duties to ensure the integrity of the system, and their own backgrounds would subject to the same scrutiny as the machines and the election processes themselves.

Conclusion:  Taken together and implemented properly, with multiple layers of security and safeguards, protecting an electronic voting system process would be a relatively inexpensive yet immensely powerful accomplish, one that is many times more difficult to break than even the most secure of banks.

Way Too Many Fake News Sites – Let’s Fix This!

As November approaches, I’m seeing more links on everyone’s walls to fake “news” websites.
 
We absolute MUST vet our sources. If we don’t, our credibility will be tainted and our effectiveness will be greatly diminished.
 
If you realize you’ve been deceived, do not worry, as you’re among many. I’ve been deceived, as well.
 
There are a large number of “news” websites which repost one another’s stuff, and which have high rankings in Google, making it appear as if it’s “all over the Internet,” when it fact, one of them will make up a BS story, and before you know it, it’s “all over” everyone’s Facebook page. And the Internet.
 
If you remember anything from this post, please make this it: FAKENEWSWATCH.COM. That’s easy enough to remember. Each entry on this comprehensive list of FAKE news sites must pass some fairly comprehensive tests before it’s included in one of their three categories:
 
1. Fake/Hoax News Websites: These are an attempt to play on guillible people who do not check sources and will just pass the news on as if it were really true. Some notable entries I’ve seen on Facebook, a LOT, include DrudgeReport, a couple of MSNBC switcheroos, ChristWire, and TheUsPatriot.
 
2. Satire Websites: These sites are not actually news. They make fun of the news. Even so, some gullible people report this comedic material as if it’s real. Notable entries include TheOnion, WeeklyWorldNews and WorldNewsDailyReport.
 
3. Clickbait Websites: These websites often take snippets of true information, but make up other, far more inflammatory details in order to sew fear and get you to share their links far and wide. They make money off advertisements times the number of page visits. Notable entries include CoastToCoastAM, ConspiracyWire, Infowars (yes, Alex is guilty), and my favorite website to hate as they’re just so darn good at it: RedFlagNews. Sadly, VeteransToday is another clickbait scammer.
 
If a “news” story is from one of these several dozen sources, it’s almost certainly NOT news at all, but rather, at attempt to deceive you.
 
Having said that, I’ve noticed a number of mainstream media outlets like Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC cleaning up their acts in recent months as the validity of Hillary Clinton’s rampant lying has been repeatedly confirmed, most notably by the FBI. Comey’s press release, wherein he blatantly implicated her in a number of outright lies, deceptions, and coverups, was a huge wakeup call to mainstream media.

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:
 
https://youtu.be/Jt_9yb4FSYA
Second, Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani:
https://youtu.be/B3ixJIuBzWg

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.