It has been a long time since my past post. It's been a very busy 5 plus years. Relocated. Became a grandparent three times. Worked a few years of part time in retirement. Volunteered in the community. Covid-19. Family issues. I feel ready to get back at it.
Friday, April 4, 2025
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Continuing the Conversation - Part 2
If money in politics is the problem that leads to school shootings, then I suggest following the money.
There are many who are blaming the NRA funding of political campaigns, but that is not justified for the following reason. The NRA does fund political campaigns, but at a much, much lower rate than other organizations such as the labor unions, education unions, and others.
From 1990-2016 federal election cycles, the NRA contributed a total of $23 million to individual candidates for federal offices. During the very same period, the AFL/CIO contributed $65 million, including $19 million in 2016 alone. So the largest group of labor unions gave nearly as much in a single cycle as the NRA did in 15 cycles. But the NEA (Nation Education Association, or teachers union) contributed a whopping $124.3 million during the 1990-2016 cycles.
That means teachers unions sent more than 5 times as much to campaigns as did the NRA.
Source: Open Secrets
There are many who are blaming the NRA funding of political campaigns, but that is not justified for the following reason. The NRA does fund political campaigns, but at a much, much lower rate than other organizations such as the labor unions, education unions, and others.
From 1990-2016 federal election cycles, the NRA contributed a total of $23 million to individual candidates for federal offices. During the very same period, the AFL/CIO contributed $65 million, including $19 million in 2016 alone. So the largest group of labor unions gave nearly as much in a single cycle as the NRA did in 15 cycles. But the NEA (Nation Education Association, or teachers union) contributed a whopping $124.3 million during the 1990-2016 cycles.
That means teachers unions sent more than 5 times as much to campaigns as did the NRA.
Source: Open Secrets
Monday, February 19, 2018
Starting a Real Conversation
In the days since the mass killing in Parkland, FL. I have not been surprised at the divisive nature of what I hear from people, read on social media, or listen to on the news. That is because the USA is currently a most divided country in terms of politics. I blogged about this before a few times if you care to go back and take a look. But blaming this on President Trump, the NRA, the GOP, or mental health boogeymen is scapegoating at best and dishonest at worst. There are many reasons for all these shootings, but the blame lies with the shooters alone.
Many thoughts are being expressed about guns, gun control, rights and fear. And justly so. What is divisive is the qualifiers added that if you disagree with the expressed you must be a horrible person for some reason or another. If you think certain types of weapons should be banned, you are coming for all guns. Or, if you want to hang onto your guns, you must be guilty of murder.
Other sentiments you hear since last Wednesday are: 1. Congress must do something, or 2. thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this, or 3. Politicians do nothing because they accept money from the NRA. Let me take these on.
Congress must do something. What? What is 'something'? We must only do something it has a chance of succeeding without violating constitutional rights such as those protected by the 2nd and 4th amendments. To say politicians have blood on their hands is not only wrong, it is not helpful. To say they have not done enough is perhaps correct, but the solution is not an easy one.
Thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this. I am one of many, many people who pray, especially when people are hurting or at risk. We have faith in prayer and believe prayer does help. None of us are suggesting prayer is the solution to bad people committing bad acts. There is always room for more prayer in society, and to make light of prayer's usefulness is an insult to prayerful people.
In order to start a real conversation about school shootings, or mass shootings anywhere, I have a few suggestions:
Many thoughts are being expressed about guns, gun control, rights and fear. And justly so. What is divisive is the qualifiers added that if you disagree with the expressed you must be a horrible person for some reason or another. If you think certain types of weapons should be banned, you are coming for all guns. Or, if you want to hang onto your guns, you must be guilty of murder.
Other sentiments you hear since last Wednesday are: 1. Congress must do something, or 2. thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this, or 3. Politicians do nothing because they accept money from the NRA. Let me take these on.
Congress must do something. What? What is 'something'? We must only do something it has a chance of succeeding without violating constitutional rights such as those protected by the 2nd and 4th amendments. To say politicians have blood on their hands is not only wrong, it is not helpful. To say they have not done enough is perhaps correct, but the solution is not an easy one.
Thoughts and prayers do nothing to stop this. I am one of many, many people who pray, especially when people are hurting or at risk. We have faith in prayer and believe prayer does help. None of us are suggesting prayer is the solution to bad people committing bad acts. There is always room for more prayer in society, and to make light of prayer's usefulness is an insult to prayerful people.
In order to start a real conversation about school shootings, or mass shootings anywhere, I have a few suggestions:
- Schools are soft targets in that they offer little or no defense against someone intent on doing evil. We must spend the price of hardening our schools at least as much we do places of business, sports arenas and many other places large numbers of people congregate. We managed to harden jet cockpits against terrorists following 9-11. Surely we can harden school room doors.
- We should hire armed guards to work in the schools. There are many former and retired military and police who would be willing to supplement their pensions or find additional income by a worthy cause such as protecting our future. These people come with weapons experience, tactical training, and have service to country in their DNA.
- We should enact legislation that mandates certain people report possible violent behavior by anyone at risk of committing violence against society. We have many examples of people shooting up a school or shopping mall that had warning signs seen by parents, teachers, fellow students, doctors, co-workers and counselors. If these signs were reported in the same manner as possible sex abuse is already, perhaps some of these events could have been prevented. Mandated reporting will mean that law enforcement, and other appropriate professionals, could go to a judge and get restraining orders against an individual purchasing a gun. Such mandated reports would be cataloged in the same database where gun background checks are conducted.
Here are three suggestions I believe would make a difference. Feel free to add to or improve upon these. Then suggest them to your representatives in state and federal government. If we want to have a real conversation, this is how we should start.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Polarization of America
Many people notice and comment on the polarization of our country. It is real and it is everywhere, but it is not all people. I believe it started with the Bush v Gore lawsuit over the Florida recount in the 2000 election. It may have started sooner for some, but it became a national phenomenon after the hanging chads.
Last night the Senate voted to pass the new tax cuts bill which has been debated for weeks if not longer. House Minority Leader Pelosi called the bill "Armageddon". Really? End of the world? Kill all humans? And that brings me to the real problem with polarization.
It seems to me that liberals, progressives and democrats (not all) cannot argue their political points of view logically, and resort to insults and name calling. I've mentioned this in earlier blog entries, but here are a few examples.
- If you disagree with abortion, then you hate women.
- If you disagree with tax cuts, you hate the poor.
- If you disagree with allowing transgenders into the opposite sex locker room, you hate the LGBTQ community.
- If you think we should build a wall, you hate Mexicans specifically, and immigrants in general.
- If you think we should vet Muslim refugees before allowing them into the country, you hate Muslims.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. Once one side of the debate goes into this 'you're a hater mode', the debate ends without any real resolution. As I see it, the political left does not want to actually debate issues thoroughly, but rather wants to rule as they see fit without debate. For there is no quicker method to ending debate than resorting to name calling and insults. For how can anyone argue that they don’t actually hate any of those groups above, or countless others?
I ask my friends on the left to consider this, and try to refrain from this dialogue killing action.
Last night the Senate voted to pass the new tax cuts bill which has been debated for weeks if not longer. House Minority Leader Pelosi called the bill "Armageddon". Really? End of the world? Kill all humans? And that brings me to the real problem with polarization.
It seems to me that liberals, progressives and democrats (not all) cannot argue their political points of view logically, and resort to insults and name calling. I've mentioned this in earlier blog entries, but here are a few examples.
- If you disagree with abortion, then you hate women.
- If you disagree with tax cuts, you hate the poor.
- If you disagree with allowing transgenders into the opposite sex locker room, you hate the LGBTQ community.
- If you think we should build a wall, you hate Mexicans specifically, and immigrants in general.
- If you think we should vet Muslim refugees before allowing them into the country, you hate Muslims.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. Once one side of the debate goes into this 'you're a hater mode', the debate ends without any real resolution. As I see it, the political left does not want to actually debate issues thoroughly, but rather wants to rule as they see fit without debate. For there is no quicker method to ending debate than resorting to name calling and insults. For how can anyone argue that they don’t actually hate any of those groups above, or countless others?
I ask my friends on the left to consider this, and try to refrain from this dialogue killing action.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Protests or Riots?
Ever since the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO, there have been many protests which have turned into, or have been coopted, into riots. Violence begot damaged or destroyed property, injuries, deaths, but very few arrests. Few arrests due to police standing by watching in many cases. Standing by in some cases because they were ordered to do so.
Regardless of what events led to the protests, riots are and should be illegal. Protests are protected free speech, but riots are an assault on civility and civilians.
Not only did authorities not stop the riots, but the media refused to call them what they were. Instead they referred to rioters as activists.
A few groups have been born during this period. The Black Lives Matter movement is a response to police shootings of unarmed black men, but has also led to the killing of police officers by BLM supporters. The Antifa (short for anti fascist) group is much more violent, often piggy-backing on other groups protests to turn them violent. The Antifa folks are actually anarchists.
Antifa has been successful is stopping others, mainly conservatives, from speaking on college campuses, most famously Cal Berkeley. They threaten the college with protests, which evolve into burning, looting, rock throwing, and general rioting.
The BLM movement concerns itself with all things deemed racist, which now includes anything on display related to the Confederacy, including the flag and statues and monuments. Many of these people think it appropriate to remove all these things since they are "offensive to blacks", who generations ago suffered under the slavery of the confederates. Apparently, any reminder of slavery is to be removed.
One wonders what they will want to remove after all flags and monuments are torn down. Books? Historic places such as Gettysburg?, Antietam? How about the historic homes of founding fathers like Monticello or Mt. Vernon?
The time has arrived when we should say enough is enough. The police need to become actively involved in preventing protests from turning into riots, and arresting any and all rioters. The media needs to accurately report on what activity is taking place and by whom, using the accurate descriptors for those events and people. And citizens need to educate themselves about history, current events, and understand who is doing what to whom.
Regardless of what events led to the protests, riots are and should be illegal. Protests are protected free speech, but riots are an assault on civility and civilians.
Not only did authorities not stop the riots, but the media refused to call them what they were. Instead they referred to rioters as activists.
A few groups have been born during this period. The Black Lives Matter movement is a response to police shootings of unarmed black men, but has also led to the killing of police officers by BLM supporters. The Antifa (short for anti fascist) group is much more violent, often piggy-backing on other groups protests to turn them violent. The Antifa folks are actually anarchists.
Antifa has been successful is stopping others, mainly conservatives, from speaking on college campuses, most famously Cal Berkeley. They threaten the college with protests, which evolve into burning, looting, rock throwing, and general rioting.
The BLM movement concerns itself with all things deemed racist, which now includes anything on display related to the Confederacy, including the flag and statues and monuments. Many of these people think it appropriate to remove all these things since they are "offensive to blacks", who generations ago suffered under the slavery of the confederates. Apparently, any reminder of slavery is to be removed.
One wonders what they will want to remove after all flags and monuments are torn down. Books? Historic places such as Gettysburg?, Antietam? How about the historic homes of founding fathers like Monticello or Mt. Vernon?
The time has arrived when we should say enough is enough. The police need to become actively involved in preventing protests from turning into riots, and arresting any and all rioters. The media needs to accurately report on what activity is taking place and by whom, using the accurate descriptors for those events and people. And citizens need to educate themselves about history, current events, and understand who is doing what to whom.
It Has Been a While
I have not posted to this blog in quite some time. In November 2016 I was given early retirement, and closely following that my wife's mother passed away after a battle with lung cancer. The holidays were busy, the things got crazy in 2017.
In January I slipped and fell hitting my head on a cement floor. Several weeks later my wife and I decided to move to Louisville, and purchased a condominium that is under construction. We then sold our home in Newport, and moved into temporary housing while construction is completed.
In March I developed stroke like symptoms resulting from my fall, and over the next 60 days I underwent two craniotomies for bleeding on the brain, a couple weeks of therapy, and home recovery.
During these 8 months I had no desire or time to write on my blog. Today I decided to resume blogging.
In January I slipped and fell hitting my head on a cement floor. Several weeks later my wife and I decided to move to Louisville, and purchased a condominium that is under construction. We then sold our home in Newport, and moved into temporary housing while construction is completed.
In March I developed stroke like symptoms resulting from my fall, and over the next 60 days I underwent two craniotomies for bleeding on the brain, a couple weeks of therapy, and home recovery.
During these 8 months I had no desire or time to write on my blog. Today I decided to resume blogging.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Democrats Made This Stuff Up
It is often said, "You can't make this stuff up". In this election year it is heard more frequently than ever as it pertains to the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. There are many reasons why voters may not vote for either candidate in particular, or for any of them in general. Mrs. Clinton, however, has the most reasons by far, and they are of her own doing.
Mrs Clinton is a notorious liar. She has been a proven liar in matters involving the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2011, and concerning her use of a private email server.
She has also be involved in many scandals going back to her days as a young attorney, wife of a governor, First Lady of the USA, Secretary of State, and now, nominee for President. If elected, given her propensity for lying, the lengthy list of scandals would surely continue to grow.
All of the email related lies and scandal could have been avoided if she had simply followed the law and used a government provided and supported email server. But even using the private server, she could have avoided this if she had complied with FOIA requests and subpoenas by turning over the server and contents. Why would you not do those things? We'll find out what was being hidden from view eventually. And by the surprising lengths she went to in order to avoid exposure, it is more likely than not criminal in nature, and also likely to place national security at risk.
I include Democrats in this brew for the following reasons.
First, the Department of Justice, with AG Loretta Lynch in control, has provided at least an appearance of impropriety, by meeting with former President Clinton, husband of the candidate under investigation at the time. That meeting at an airport in Arizona raised suspicion since it came shortly before FBI Director Comey presented his case at a press conference. During the presser he basically indicted Mrs. Clinton for several violations of national security law, then said he would not recommend indictment. That was a total miscarriage of justice.
Second, now that another stash of an estimated 650,000 email messages have been found on the personal computer of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, AG Lynch refuses to allow the FBI to read through those and determine if they present any legal problems for the previously closed investigation concerning Mrs. Clinton's email issues.
Third, many Democrat operatives and politicians are now making the news show circuit to explain away Mrs. Clinton's problems with email in a not so transparent way. When the FBI Directory told us he would not recommend indictment after providing multiple reasons to indict, these Democrats praised the director and claimed he exonerated her. Now they are accusing the same director of a political hit job on her. You can't have it both ways.
Fourth, the way Democrats join ranks to protect their candidate is especially troubling. It creates a closed minded, group think, go along to get along, mentality. It makes one wonder if they all really believe what they are saying, or are they that much afraid to be different and stand on principle.
While Donald Trump is a flawed candidate personally, he does not present the kind of risk that having Hillary Clinton as our president would. Neither candidate is especially highly thought of, but only one carries the scandalous baggage that could truly be harmful to the country.
You can't make this stuff up. Can't say that anymore.
Mrs Clinton is a notorious liar. She has been a proven liar in matters involving the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2011, and concerning her use of a private email server.
She has also be involved in many scandals going back to her days as a young attorney, wife of a governor, First Lady of the USA, Secretary of State, and now, nominee for President. If elected, given her propensity for lying, the lengthy list of scandals would surely continue to grow.
All of the email related lies and scandal could have been avoided if she had simply followed the law and used a government provided and supported email server. But even using the private server, she could have avoided this if she had complied with FOIA requests and subpoenas by turning over the server and contents. Why would you not do those things? We'll find out what was being hidden from view eventually. And by the surprising lengths she went to in order to avoid exposure, it is more likely than not criminal in nature, and also likely to place national security at risk.
I include Democrats in this brew for the following reasons.
First, the Department of Justice, with AG Loretta Lynch in control, has provided at least an appearance of impropriety, by meeting with former President Clinton, husband of the candidate under investigation at the time. That meeting at an airport in Arizona raised suspicion since it came shortly before FBI Director Comey presented his case at a press conference. During the presser he basically indicted Mrs. Clinton for several violations of national security law, then said he would not recommend indictment. That was a total miscarriage of justice.
Second, now that another stash of an estimated 650,000 email messages have been found on the personal computer of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, AG Lynch refuses to allow the FBI to read through those and determine if they present any legal problems for the previously closed investigation concerning Mrs. Clinton's email issues.
Third, many Democrat operatives and politicians are now making the news show circuit to explain away Mrs. Clinton's problems with email in a not so transparent way. When the FBI Directory told us he would not recommend indictment after providing multiple reasons to indict, these Democrats praised the director and claimed he exonerated her. Now they are accusing the same director of a political hit job on her. You can't have it both ways.
Fourth, the way Democrats join ranks to protect their candidate is especially troubling. It creates a closed minded, group think, go along to get along, mentality. It makes one wonder if they all really believe what they are saying, or are they that much afraid to be different and stand on principle.
While Donald Trump is a flawed candidate personally, he does not present the kind of risk that having Hillary Clinton as our president would. Neither candidate is especially highly thought of, but only one carries the scandalous baggage that could truly be harmful to the country.
You can't make this stuff up. Can't say that anymore.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Without Evidence
The Left and the Masses: Part I, Part II, Part III
Dr. Thomas Sowell, PhD. Economics, wrote a series of columns explaining that those on the left claim to have great compassion for the poor and downtrodden, have implemented policies and programs to deal with that, but fail to deliver. A good summary quote from those columns would be as follows:
"The political left in general has been able to claim that they have more compassion for the less fortunate, and to depict their opponents as lacking in compassion for others. For none of these assertions have they felt a need to offer hard evidence."
The left is quick to claim their good intentions as justification fro all sorts of government intervention into our daily lives, but those polices simply fail to deliver on those intentions. And if you dispute the need for or benefits of such policies and programs, then you are a hater.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, PhD. Economics, wrote a series of columns explaining that those on the left claim to have great compassion for the poor and downtrodden, have implemented policies and programs to deal with that, but fail to deliver. A good summary quote from those columns would be as follows:
"The political left in general has been able to claim that they have more compassion for the less fortunate, and to depict their opponents as lacking in compassion for others. For none of these assertions have they felt a need to offer hard evidence."
The left is quick to claim their good intentions as justification fro all sorts of government intervention into our daily lives, but those polices simply fail to deliver on those intentions. And if you dispute the need for or benefits of such policies and programs, then you are a hater.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Rule of Law Cannot Survive Hillary
Rule of Law Cannot Survive Hillary
The rule of law no longer exists when people are not held to the law. When some are and some are not, the rules fail us even more. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she is above the law by repeatedly breaking laws, and the people in government responsible for enforcement do nothing.
Matt Walsh covers this in his article linked above.
The rule of law no longer exists when people are not held to the law. When some are and some are not, the rules fail us even more. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated she is above the law by repeatedly breaking laws, and the people in government responsible for enforcement do nothing.
Matt Walsh covers this in his article linked above.
Collusion, Corruption and Lies, Oh My!
The Democrat National Committee and the Democrat Party have lost it all. By their unwavering support of Hillary Clinton for President, they have allowed the end to justify the means.
Is this really what Americans want for the next 4 years minimum? A vote for Hillary will dump this on America and scandal after scandal will ensue.
We have seen all of the following from democrats during this election cycle:
- Collusion with the press
- Collusion between super pacs, the DNC, and the Hillary campaign
- Contracting for violence at Trump political rallies
- Collusion between the State Department, the Department of Justice, the FBI Director, and the Hillary campaign concerning the investigation of her email server and classified information
- Lies about the emails
- Destruction of evidence in that investigation
- Destruction of documents under subpoena by the US Congress
- Obfuscation by blaming the revelations in WikiLeaks on the Russians
Is this really what Americans want for the next 4 years minimum? A vote for Hillary will dump this on America and scandal after scandal will ensue.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Hillary Not Qualified to Hold Any Office
Reading this section 2017(b) of the US Code clearly states that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to hold any office in the United States. This is because, despite lack of charges being filed against her, she did, or ordered others to, destroy email messages and mobile devices and laptops, which were used while she was the Secretary of State.
It is rather obvious that Attorney General Lynch and the FBI failed to indict Secretary Clinton in order to keep her campaign for president alive and well. It was also likely supported by President Obama. If she were charged, tried and convicted she would forever be ineligible for the office she wanted so badly. Badly enough to cheat and lie for.
In case there are doubts about intent to do so, this will assure you of intent. Legally speaking, proving intent is done using evidence since the accused rarely admits intent. So ask yourself a couple questions.
- Did she accidentally and unintentionally, or purposefully, buy and install an email server in her home?
- Did she accidentally and unintentionally, or purposefully, read, write, send and receive email messages, on said server, related to her position as Secretary of State?
- Did she accidentally and unintentionally, or purposefully, delete, from said server, official business related email messages?
- Did she accidentally and unintentionally, or purposefully, smash and destroy mobile devises used in transacting email messages related to official business?
- Can official email message be described as follows:
...any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing,... - Can deleting email messages or smashing or destroying those devices be described as follows:
...conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys...
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Vote for Trump
Donald Trump says mean things. But then, Hillary is a liar and a generally mean person. So let's let those two things cancel each other out in the discussion of this election, shall we?
The reasons I will vote for Trump are listed here:
- Donald Trump wants to lower my taxes while Hillary Clinton wants to raise them
- Trump wants to eliminate regulations to allow businesses to grow. Hillary wants to keep and/or increase regulations to keep business stagnant.
- Trump wants to increase border security to prevent illegal immigration. Hillary wants open borders.
- Trump wants to appoint judges who will honor and respect the constitution. Hillary wants to change the constitution from the bench by judicial fiat.
- Trump will repeal Obamacare. Hillary will morph Obamacare into a single payer system and destroy healthcare altogether.
- Hillary will try to bankrupt gun manufacturers by allowing victims of gun crimes to sue the company that made the gun. This would be like suing Ford if you're hit by a drunk driver in an Taurus. Trump would not do that, and he fully supports your constitutional right to bear arms.
- Trump may not have any foreign policy experience, but neither did the previous 43 presidents. Hillary's experience has been dreadfully inept, resulting in what we currently see in the Middle East and with Russia.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Stop Debating
Mark Steyn on O'Reilly Factor
Mark Steyn makes the case that liberals don't want to win the debate on any subject. They want to stop the debate. Because your position differs from theirs, and their intentions are pure, you must be evil, and not worthy of debating.
Proof of this is contained in Hillary Clinton's campaigning when she said Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables. You support the other guy, so you're evil.
Mark Steyn makes the case that liberals don't want to win the debate on any subject. They want to stop the debate. Because your position differs from theirs, and their intentions are pure, you must be evil, and not worthy of debating.
Proof of this is contained in Hillary Clinton's campaigning when she said Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables. You support the other guy, so you're evil.
Not Deplorable on the Right
Hillary Clinton's now famous line about half of Trump's supporters belonging in a 'basket of deplorables' is fast becoming a badge of honor among those so-called deplorable people.
Many on the left make claims of racism, sexism, and varied phobias when they disagree with those on the right on various topics. For example:
Many on the left make claims of racism, sexism, and varied phobias when they disagree with those on the right on various topics. For example:
- If you disagree with abortion, you must hate women, and you must want pregnant women to die in back alley abortion clinics
- If you disagree with gun control, you want to see school children die at their desks
- If you disagree with Obamacare
- you must be racist since Obama is black
- you must hate grandma and want to throw her off of a cliff
- If you dislike illegal immigration you must hate immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants
- If you want to vet Muslim refugees you are Islamophobic
- If you disagree with same sex marriage you must hate gays, and therefore are homophobic
You see, you cannot have a reasonable discussion with those leftists. There is no room for discussion or negotiation. There is no logic or reason on the left. We think the left is wrong, and we can argue that position on all the above topics. But the left thinks we are not wrong, but evil.
People vs. Pundits
Following the first presidential debate of 2016, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, polling who won the debate has been somewhat misleading, and the people are suffering for it.
According to 10 snap polls conducted immediately following the debates, each by a different online media provider, there may be a huge difference in what the people and the pundits think. What makes them interesting is the online polls are very different from what many of pundit class want you to think about the debate.
Below is a list of ten sites which snap polled to see who people thought won the debate. By a large margin, in election terms anyway, Donald Trump was seen as the clear winner. The average margin of polling in Trump's favor was 62.9% to Hillary Clinton's 35.1%. Nine of 10 polls had Trump head by no less than 9.1%, and the 10th poll was a 50-50 tie. Clinton did not poll as winner in any of these polls.
Following the debate nearly all news outlets, on cable and broadcast TV, had so-called experts of the news, political pundits, and commentators declare Hillary the debate winner.
We can probably all agree that the polls above are not scientific, and probably have high margin for error. As a single poll we never accept the results as accurate with any degree of certainty. However, as a group, they do indicate that the convincing declarations of Clinton winning this debate can be, and should be, carefully reconsidered.
These sites are not all left or right leaning, so you can assume some level of confidence in the sum of the polls. Doesn't it make you a little bit curious why there is such a discrepancy between the political punditry and the citizens?
According to 10 snap polls conducted immediately following the debates, each by a different online media provider, there may be a huge difference in what the people and the pundits think. What makes them interesting is the online polls are very different from what many of pundit class want you to think about the debate.
Below is a list of ten sites which snap polled to see who people thought won the debate. By a large margin, in election terms anyway, Donald Trump was seen as the clear winner. The average margin of polling in Trump's favor was 62.9% to Hillary Clinton's 35.1%. Nine of 10 polls had Trump head by no less than 9.1%, and the 10th poll was a 50-50 tie. Clinton did not poll as winner in any of these polls.
| Poll |
Hillary
|
Trump
|
Margin
|
| CNBC |
38.0
|
62.0
|
24.0
|
| Washington Times |
24.0
|
70.0
|
46.0
|
| Drudge Report |
19.4
|
80.6
|
61.2
|
| Breitbart |
24.3
|
75.8
|
51.5
|
Variety
|
45.5
|
54.5
|
9.1
|
| NJ.com |
39.0
|
56.7
|
17.7
|
| The Hill |
36.0
|
59.0
|
23.0
|
| Fox 5 (NY) |
34.3
|
60.9
|
26.6
|
| CBS New York |
40.8
|
59.2
|
18.4
|
| TIME |
50.0
|
50.0
|
0.0
|
| Average |
35.1
|
62.9
|
27.7
|
Following the debate nearly all news outlets, on cable and broadcast TV, had so-called experts of the news, political pundits, and commentators declare Hillary the debate winner.
We can probably all agree that the polls above are not scientific, and probably have high margin for error. As a single poll we never accept the results as accurate with any degree of certainty. However, as a group, they do indicate that the convincing declarations of Clinton winning this debate can be, and should be, carefully reconsidered.
These sites are not all left or right leaning, so you can assume some level of confidence in the sum of the polls. Doesn't it make you a little bit curious why there is such a discrepancy between the political punditry and the citizens?
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Dear Liberal
Dear Liberal - Here's why I'm so hostile!
This column was shared with me and I felt the need to share it and preserve it here.
"In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry."
This column was shared with me and I felt the need to share it and preserve it here.
"In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry."
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Hillary Clinton Does Not Deserve Your Vote
It has become quite clear in the last year, if not the years prior, that Mrs. Clinton is not only a liar, but a corrupt, careless, and mean-spirited woman.
Hillary has lied to the American people over and over about many things. She has repeated lies, and compounded her lies with more lies. She has called people talking truth to and about her liars. Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it slapped her in the face.
Hillary, we now know, ran the State Department as a private enterprise, selling access and favors, and laundering the cash through the Clinton family's charitable foundation, and lining her personal coffers in the process. We also know that foundation actually spent about 10% on actual charity, and 90% on salaries, travel and other expenses.
Hillary told the world the Benghazi attacks were the result of a YouTube video. She told the parents of the deceased the same thing. When those families shared that with media, Hillary accused them of lying. Sidebar: If that was a lie, then why are there two different stories about this?
Hillary, by accounts told by former Secret Service agents in the know, is a mean woman, who treats those around her with disdain. She was reportedly verbally abusive to many agents, servants in the White House, and others, on many occasions.
This all adds up to Hillary being a contemptuous human being with little or no regard for anything we Americans hold near and dear to our hearts. Hillary should not get your vote, and should not become our next President.
Hillary has lied to the American people over and over about many things. She has repeated lies, and compounded her lies with more lies. She has called people talking truth to and about her liars. Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it slapped her in the face.
Hillary, we now know, ran the State Department as a private enterprise, selling access and favors, and laundering the cash through the Clinton family's charitable foundation, and lining her personal coffers in the process. We also know that foundation actually spent about 10% on actual charity, and 90% on salaries, travel and other expenses.
Hillary told the world the Benghazi attacks were the result of a YouTube video. She told the parents of the deceased the same thing. When those families shared that with media, Hillary accused them of lying. Sidebar: If that was a lie, then why are there two different stories about this?
Hillary, by accounts told by former Secret Service agents in the know, is a mean woman, who treats those around her with disdain. She was reportedly verbally abusive to many agents, servants in the White House, and others, on many occasions.
This all adds up to Hillary being a contemptuous human being with little or no regard for anything we Americans hold near and dear to our hearts. Hillary should not get your vote, and should not become our next President.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Gender Fluidity Not Supported by Science
The New Atlantis - Questions Related to Gender and Sexuality
This paper goes into lengthy details about gender, sex and sexuality, and leads to the conclusion that gender identity is not arbitrary. In other words, deciding you are man born in a woman's body, or woman born in a man's body, is not supported by scientific data.
Science is something many people are not willing to spend time on, but are more than willing to make scientific declarations. Along with climate change theory, gender identity theory says you can be whichever gender you choose, regardless of your genetics.
This is a very interesting read, published by highly regarded and documented scientists.
This paper goes into lengthy details about gender, sex and sexuality, and leads to the conclusion that gender identity is not arbitrary. In other words, deciding you are man born in a woman's body, or woman born in a man's body, is not supported by scientific data.
Science is something many people are not willing to spend time on, but are more than willing to make scientific declarations. Along with climate change theory, gender identity theory says you can be whichever gender you choose, regardless of your genetics.
This is a very interesting read, published by highly regarded and documented scientists.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Dan Rather is Laughable
Rather Tells Media to Shame Trump Supporters
Yes, that Dan Rather. The same Dan Rather disgraced out of a job for inventing a lie about George W. Bush.
Our TV News outlets today have become so biased to one side or the other it is becoming laughable. Mostly the media lean left. Journalists are no longer people who report just the facts, but embed opinions into news reporting in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Many people I know accuse Fox News of being too conservative. While that may be true, it only noticed because all the rest of the media is so far to the left.
For a former journalist to suggest the media's job is the propagandize about presidential nominees goes well beyond reasonable and logical. Journalists should be neutral in their reporting of news, and opinion pieced should be clearly identified as just that.
Ask yourself, what is the job of journalists and news media. Then ask if they deliver on that.
Even the NY Times offered this piece, which tells you how far thins have moved to the left.
Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect
Yes, that Dan Rather. The same Dan Rather disgraced out of a job for inventing a lie about George W. Bush.
Our TV News outlets today have become so biased to one side or the other it is becoming laughable. Mostly the media lean left. Journalists are no longer people who report just the facts, but embed opinions into news reporting in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Many people I know accuse Fox News of being too conservative. While that may be true, it only noticed because all the rest of the media is so far to the left.
For a former journalist to suggest the media's job is the propagandize about presidential nominees goes well beyond reasonable and logical. Journalists should be neutral in their reporting of news, and opinion pieced should be clearly identified as just that.
Ask yourself, what is the job of journalists and news media. Then ask if they deliver on that.
Even the NY Times offered this piece, which tells you how far thins have moved to the left.
Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Government Incompetence
The Department of Health isn't telling the whole truth about Zika funding
This demonstrates perfectly how incompetent out government machine is at providing for the general welfare of the citizens. While claiming they need more funding for fighting the Zika virus, they waste money on other pet projects and projects of much lesser importance.
It is very hard to justify the spending on the following list of projects when faced with a critical situation such as te spread of the Zika virus:
This demonstrates perfectly how incompetent out government machine is at providing for the general welfare of the citizens. While claiming they need more funding for fighting the Zika virus, they waste money on other pet projects and projects of much lesser importance.
It is very hard to justify the spending on the following list of projects when faced with a critical situation such as te spread of the Zika virus:
- Exercise programs for refugees
- Anti-smoking video games (This one is downright funny.)
- Weight-loss programs for truckers
- Gay hookup apps
- Teaching 11 year old Kenyan boys how to use condoms
- How do drunk men look at women?
- Anti-obesity rap songs
- Study the "freshman 15" (a reference to weight gains by college freshman)
This demonstrates perfectly, to the tune of $49.5 million, how bureaucrats in DC are incapable of wisely choosing how to spend the tax dollars we all work so hard to earn and have forcibly taken from us by the IRS.
Which would you rather the pinheads in DC spend your money on?
Which would you rather the pinheads in DC spend your money on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)