With all the attention in the media about “School” shootings in particular and “Mass” shootings in general, I have been doing a lot of reading lately on these two subjects.

Let me start by saying that I am a staunch believer that guns are not the problem and that the lack of personal accountability and the decline in social and moral structure in our culture is far more to blame than the availability of firearms.

For the purpose of this piece I am using a common definition of “Mass Shooting” provided by the FBI – four or more fatalities and not stemming from gang violence or the commission of another preceding crime, it also leaves out shootings involving multiple members of families known to the shooter.  However in the “School” shooting category I did not apply the “Mass Shooting” criteria.

Observations from my reading.  There have been 150 “Mass” shootings, in the United States since 1966, beginning with the “Clock Tower” shooting at the University of Texas – Austin (17 killed) and ending with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland Florida (also 17 killed).  During that 51 year period 1,077 people have been killed (including some of the shooters), there were 153 shooters (150 of which were male), 88 of them died during the commission of the crime (some by suicide).  There were 292 guns used (or available – I believe this number includes Las Vegas where the shooter had numerous (24) weapons in the room, but obviously not all were actually used during the shooting spree), 167 were obtained legally, 49 illegally and 76 were of undermined origin.

They occurred in 41 states, California with the most (23) and obviously nine states had zero (Texas had 13). The numbers by decade – 1960’s  = 5, 1970’s = 9, 1980’s = 20, 1990’s = 30, 2000’s = 33 and so far in the 2010’s = 40.  They have occurred in a variety of places including military bases (4), churches or other places of worship (10), schools / colleges / university (21), stores / restaurants/ bars (34) offices (35) and other unspecified locations (56).  As the figures above indicate, the number of incidents are on the increase.  The question is why.

 

Now let’s talk “School” shootings.  As stated previously, I did not filter these numbers by the FBI “Mass Shooting” criteria. These are reported shootings that occurred at a school regardless of whether or not school was in session or not and regardless of the number of deaths and/or injured.  I used this particular set of statistics to show that “school” shootings are NOT something new.  In fact these reports go back before the Revolutionary War.

Let’s begin in 1764, there was a school shooting in which ten people died, resulting from an uprising of the local indian tribe. However only one was killed by gunfire, the rest were killed by what were classified as “melee” weapons.  The next incident reported in the article I used as a source was in 1840.

I am going to list these a little differently, while I am still listing by decade, I want to add how many total shootings occurred, how many were  “Mass” shootings and how many resulted in “0” deaths:

1840 – 1899     37 total     0=mass  19=0 deaths

1900 – 1909     15 total     0=mass   5=0 deaths

1910 – 1919     19 total     0=mass   8=0 deaths

1920 – 1929     10 total     0=mass   6=0 deaths

1930 – 1939     9 total      0=mass    1=0 deaths

1940 – 1949     7 total      1-mass     2=0 deaths

1950 – 1959     17 total    0=mass   4=0 deaths

1960 – 1969     18 total    2=mass    1=0 deaths

1970 – 1979     30 total    2=mass    7=0 deaths

1980 – 1989     39 total    1 mass    7=0  deaths

1990 – 1999     62 total    4=mass    16=0 deaths

2000 – 2009     63 total    5=mass    26=9 deaths

2001 – 2018    148 total   7=mass 84=0 deaths

This set of statistics also shows an overall trend upward in the number of incidents during the comparable period of the 1960’s to the present.  Again the question is “Why”?  I do believe firearm availability does come into play here somewhat.  In light of the fact that many of the school shootings involve students, who are by nature less mature, their decision making would be more “emotion” driven rather than “analytical” in nature.  So by availability here, I am referring to households that do not keep weapons secure and are therefore readily “available” to minors, as opposed the the overall availability to law abiding adults.

Now let’s contemplate the “Why” posed above. What has changed during this 50 years plus time frame, besides the increased availability of guns, that explains why people are increasingly willing to do harm to and even murder others?

In my humble opinion it comes down to the morale degradation of our society, beginning in the 1960’s (Engle vs. Vitale, (1962) effectively ending prayer in school and Murray vs Curlett, (1963) effectively ending Bible reading in schools), all the way up to the present.

Since the 1960’s when these two events happened up to today, we have seen an ever increasing decline in the accountability of the “individual” through laws and social permissiveness in everything ranging from what was allowable on TV and in movies (Rating system) all the way to what is now available on “Social Media”.  It has increasingly become a mindset of “Anything Goes”.  The language allowed (can you imagine some of the words we hear on TV now being used on public broadcasts in the 60′, 70’s and even the 80’s), the pervasiveness of sex, (some things allowed on TV today would have been X-rated in the early rating system at the box office), the violence (the graphic nature of violence now in the name of “realism” was never allowed before the 60’s, you almost never saw anyone even bleed in the old western movies) and the disrespect, (can you imagine Opie talking to his “Pa” in the Andy Griffith show the way youth today is routinely shown to address their parents on show after show).

Technology is only increasing the speed at which these things are taking place.  The PC (Personal Computer) was introduced in the late 70’s, “mobile phones” were first commercially available in the early 70’s, cell phones came on the scene in the early to mid 80’s, laptop computers came in the early 80’s, “tablet” computers came in the 90’s and “Smartphones” appeared in the early 2000’s. If you notice this roughly corresponds to the timeline of the increase in shootings.

Now I am not saying the technological advances cause shootings, but I am saying that the immediate availability of information becoming so widespread may be contributing to the root cause behind them. In 2013 and 2014 there were several reports linking social media and anger, not just in America, but worldwide.

Maybe this spreading anger in our culture has a direct impact on these events.  Once again the removal of moral teachings in our education system changes how we, as citizens, respond to this anger. Without a sound moral compass ingrained in us from childhood, maybe more and more of our young people make bad choices.

It  is up to us as Average Red Blooded American Citizens to replace what the schools have abandoned, teach our kids and grand kids about biblical moral behaviors.

 

What does the government shutdown really mean to the average citizen?

The answer is: not much.  There is only about 15% or so of the government that will stop operating.  Social Security and Medicare checks will still go out, mail will still be delivered, the military will continue to function (although if the shutdown continues long enough, pay will be disrupted) and ALL other “essential” services will continue to take place.

Now for approximately 800,000 government employees that will be furloughed on Monday, they will be greatly effected.  Ironically that number is roughly equivalent to the number of illegal aliens that the Democrats are trying to “protect” with the demands for DACA to be included in the funding negotiations.  To me that means the Democrats are choosing the non-citizens over the welfare of legal residents (both natural born and naturalized).  Now some of these government workers might be “undocumented” (I prefer the term illegal) workers, but if so the government agencies are not doing a very good job in their hiring practices, and it would still be a very small percentage.

Back to the point, the vast majority of the population will only be effected by minor inconveniences such as not being able to get into some government offices and not get some services such as permits and such. But these things will only be temporarily delayed until the politicians quit playing “one-upmanship” and get back to doing their jobs.

My fear is that this new game of creating an unnecessary crisis of “let’s shutdown the government” is going to become the new normal in how they can put pressure on each other to get what they want.  I blame both parties for this mess.  Not this specific funding argument, but the larger problem of allowing a funding  problem every year because they do not pass legislation to fund the ENTIRE government during their routine course of business.  If they passed a budget and ALL the appropriations bills at the first of each legislative session like they should, we would not be in this cycle of “continuing resolutions” that allows this to take place.

We, the Average Citizens, have to consider sending a message to BOTH parties that we want them to do the peoples business and if they don’t we should look at voting for more independent candidates rather than party affiliated ones.

 

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I have not been posting new material for a while.  That is because my previous computer developed some issues and quit working.  I was too cheap to fix it or buy a replacement and, quite frankly, not very motivated to do so.

However with the beginning of the new year, my motivation has returned.  So I will be posting again from time to time.  Once again commenting on current issues and just some of my observations of society in general.

For those who may be finding out about this blog for the first time, from Facebook, I encourage you to go read some of my previous posts to get a feel for what is it about.

Please feel free to send comments, suggestions or questions.  I cannot guarantee that I will respond directly, but I will take all input into consideration for future posts.

If you have been following my page you know that I have not been inspired to write anything for a while.  That is because the media has been so fixated on “Trump Hate” that it just seemed futile to write on the subject of politics and other national interest subjects.

But now that I have seen the response to the tragedy in South Texas it has given me the inspiration to express my thoughts again.

I am so extremely proud of the “American Spirit” in the outpouring of support; humanitarian, spiritual and financial, from around the country.  We are Texans and expect our fellow Texans to step up and support each other, but the compassion and support from all over the country has been truly inspiring to me.  I was afraid we, as a nation, had lost that sense of caring, that we as a country had devolved so much into politics and racial divide that we might not care for our fellow human beings.

Thankfully I was mistaken, the true American Spirit is alive and active.  We may still have our differences, but above it all, we still care about our neighbors and communities more than our differences. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, have come to the aid of the people of South Texas. Some physically, they have brought boats and large vehicles to rescue those in need. Some financially, they may be too far from the area to help directly, but through their contributions they have allowed supplies and food and fresh water to be made available.  Some through something as simple, but yet profound, as prayer.  Many dismiss the power of prayer, I can tell you from personal experience that fervent heartfelt prayer is far more powerful than many people may realize.

I am just an “Average Red Blooded American Citizen”, but am so proud of my fellow Average American Citizens because once again they have proven that despite all else we are “Americans” first and foremost.  We can do anything when we set aside our differences and focus on those things that matter most. Life, Liberty, Freedom and “community”.

Let’s begin the discussion with the fact that in order for there to be Creation (Intelligent Design), there must be a Creator (the Greater Intelligence).  Which means we as humans must acknowledge that there is an intellect out there grater than our own, meaning God. This requires faith, a belief in something greater than ourselves, as a basis on which we can accept things we don’t fully understand as being put in place by God.

Now the opposing viewpoint believes that Evolution (natural progression) is the driving force behind all things that exist today. They fully and unequivocally believe that some catastrophic event (the Big Bang) happened billions of years ago, then out of some primordial pool all things developed and that somehow set in motion events that lead us to where we stand now.  Everything began with some single cell organism that has over time become ALL of the complex organisms (everything from amoebas to humans) of our current environment (not to mention all the creatures that have become extinct and possibly millions that we don’t even know about). Think about the mathematical complication, not to mention the exponential evolutions that had to take place. First there had to be the “Original” organism, then that thing had to evolve into “what” (a two celled organism), then into some sort of multi-celled (four or more celled) thing? Then at some point the cells have to “learn” to become specialized, and on and on and on and on…..

They have to become what types of cells next? Let’s prioritize: first, blood or maybe a precursor such as amino acid? What has to develop first to support life?  How does a such a basic organism know, or decide, what to make next?  At what point MUST intelligence be introduced? Where does the intelligence come from if there has been no brain formation? If there has been brain formation how did that happen without intelligence? According to the evolution theory, living organisms adapt to their surroundings, or evolve to meet the demands of their environment.

Talk about faith, they must have some sort of faith far surpassing Christianity to believe that all these things can fall into place randomly and everything still works. Now some scientists will say that it was not random, but rather sequential.  If there was no intelligence behind it, doesn’t that make it, by default, random? Once again where would the sequential process begin? At what point in the sequence would we be able to recognize some sort of life form approaching anything near something as complex as even a worm? Even then how does the worm decide to become something else? A tadpole maybe? Do you see the circular logic here? And even that requires intelligence.

Let me pose a few questions.  If a bird needs to eat and this bird has developed a taste for the nectar of a specific flower, does the flower then say to itself , “I must produce a longer bloom to protect my nectar from the invading bird?” and then the bird says to itself, “I must grow a longer beak and tongue to reach the nectar!” and so the progression goes on and on until the bird cannot grow a beak long enough.  Well then the bird says to itself: “I must create a tube that runs from the roof of my beak over the top of my skull, behind my head, under the bottom of my skull and into the back of my beak, so I can accommodate the new tongue that I must now grow to reach my nectar! Don’t you think the bird might have starved to death before the evolutionary process was complete, or did the bird develop the new tongue and passageway for it overnight?

The first thing that comes to mind is: Where did the flower and bird get the intelligence to decide these things? The answer is: They have no intelligence as we understand it.  They did not “decide” theses things, they were “designed” to work together.

There are literally thousands of instances in nature where plants and animals benefit from each other because ALL things were designed to work together.  Now sometimes we do not fully understand the “why” of how things work, but it is inevitably true.

Now let me be clear! I do believe there is such a thing as evolution. Even humans have “evolved” during our documented history.  If memory serves me correctly, I think the average Roman soldier was between 5′ 4″ to 5′ 6″ tall.  The “average” Italian male is currently around 5′ 9″ while the average male in many parts of the world is around 6′ 1″ tall.  So there are changes (evolution) within species, such as humans. I expect there is also some devolution, where species regress due to long term localized conditions.

The basic truth is that even if evolution did take place over centuries, there still HAD to be some degree of intelligent design early in the process or the system as we know it today would have collapsed at some point.

 

 

 

As I see it there are two basic sets of “rights”, human (also known as universal) rights and, in our country, constitutional rights. Please be aware that this is a very lengthy post and you may want to skim past some of the information in paragraphs three and six, then refer back to them as you start to get the gist of my meaning.

There was not really a widespread or “global” concept of basic, all-encompassing, “human” rights before 1948. That is when the United Nations created the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, which the member nations agreed to in Paris that year.

This document has thirty “articles” which lay out the specific rights and the application thereof. They are briefly described as follows; 1) All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights, 2) Everyone is entitled to the rights set forth in the Declaration, 3) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, 4) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, 5) No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel or inhumane punishment, 6) Everyone has a right to recognition as a person under the law, 7) All are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law, 8) Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law, 9) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 10) Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing,  in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. 11) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, 12) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, 13) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country, 14) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, 15) Everyone has the right to a nationality, 16) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family, marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses and the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, 17) Everyone has the right to own property and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property, 18) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, 19) Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 20) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and no one may be compelled to belong to an association, 21) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government, 22) Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality, 23) Everyone has the right to work,  without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work and everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests, 24) Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours, 25) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control and motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection (emphasis added),   26) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory, 27) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, 28) Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized, 29) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and 30) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Remember I said “briefly”, in relation the list above, so I paraphrased some of the document and took what I believed was the important verbiage from other sections to create the list. I felt it was important to give a complete overview of what knowledgeable people are going to use when they refer to “Human Rights”. Though many who claim to know about these rights probably have never read the document or even know where the term “Human Rights” comes from.

Below are our rights as stipulated in the United States constitution;

Constitutionally enumerated rights:

1) writ of habeas corpus (to ensure valid detention if accused of a crime), 2) no bill of attainder (guarantee of right to a trial), 3) no duties or taxes on transporting goods from one state to another, 4) jury trials, 5) freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition, 6) the right of people to keep and bear arms, 7) no quartering of troops in homes without permission of the owner, 8) no unreasonable search and seizure, 9) major crimes require indictment, no double jeopardy (more than one prosecution), for the same crime, no self-incrimination, right to due process, right to just compensation taken by eminent domain, 10) in criminal law, right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against one, and to counsel, 11) trial by jury, 12) right to bail, no excessive fines and no cruel and unusual punishment, 13) unenumerated rights are reserved to the people, 14) equal protection under the laws, 15) no racial bars to voting, 16) no sex bars to voting, 17) no poll tax.

The first thing you notice is that the list of constitutional rights is much shorter (just over half as many), and many are duplicates of the “universal” list. I attribute part of this to the different eras from which the two documents were drafted. As humankind advances we feel the need to become more legalistic and parse words more, hence the need for more detailed verbiage in our legal documents. If you were to read both documents in their entirety you would also notice that not just the wording of our constitution is simpler but the concepts are kept simple so the regular citizen can easily make sense of them.

In our constitutional rights there is no provision for things that are now deemed as being “rights” by the Liberal legislators and groups that “defend the less fortunate”. Things like “welfare”, “universal health care”, “free college”, “gay marriage”,  “LGBT” status, etc. All of these items are just from people wanting someone else to support them so they don’t have to do it themselves.

Many people see these as “Human Rights” and use the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (#13 on my list) and Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis to warrant such notions. Since the Ninth Amendment states that
“Unenmurated rights are left to the people”, the liberals have taken that to mean that rights in the UN document fall into the unenumerated category. Most of the things I have pointed out can be found in Article 25 of this document and if not specifically in article 25, then in other parts of the document.  In my view these are not “rights” under our constitution, but rather “expectations” that the leftist minority in this country are trying to foster upon the common majority in this country.  They have been repeatedly unable to do it legislatively, so they have worked for decades to do it culturally.  Through indoctrination in the education system and criminal justice system (prisons in particular) and the media (including television and cinema).

If Average Red Blooded American Citizens are to be able to protect against this destructive trend we must become educated as to what our elected officials stand for and what candidates for office uphold as their values and elect those with strong moral stances who will pass legislation to preserve our way of life.

I personally believe that our founding fathers had the right idea, keep it simple. Don’t be legalistic, understand basic morals and common sense behavior.

 

I find it a fascinating thing to watch the reaction of the different political parties when it comes to the issue of gun control.  In the aftermath of the shooting of Republican congressmen in Alexandria recently, there seems to be fewer cries for gun control than there were in 2011 when Gabby Giffords (a Democratic congresswoman) was shot.

Part of this is because the Republicans are in charge of both houses of congress and the executive branch right now (even though you can hardly tell it) and they are typically against gun control on the basis of individual freedom and responsibility. Even though they were targeted by a gunman specifically for their party affiliation, I am pleased with the level-headed approach that most of the representatives, present during the attack, that I have seen or heard speaking about the indecent. They almost all have had a sensible and thoughtful response in that they have focused the attention on the person behind the act and not the tool (gun) which he used to carry out the attack.

The Democrats, who are very much in favor of gun control (and thereby another way to control the populace), have been surprisingly quite after this incident. Again this is partially due to the fact that they do not control the agenda in either house of congress, nor do they have the bully pulpit of the presidency. However, they have not even been seen in the media very much in the days and now weeks since the attack. I wonder if it might be because it was not one of their own that was wounded? Could it be that in this case the argument for gun control laws would not hold much credence, since the shooter purchased his weaponry legally in the state of Illinois, which has some of the  strictest gun control laws in the country already (so much for keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals with gun control laws)?

I recently read a list of high-profile attacks dating back to the early 2000’s in which the weapons were purchased legally; including the Alexandria attack (most recently), the Sandy Hook School shootings and the Gabby Giffords incident. They numbered around twenty different situations across the entire country. Many of these happened in states with very strict gun control laws. Doesn’t that indicate that gun laws are not the answer.  Holding those who commit the crimes accountable is the real answer. On the list were Sandy Hook (Connecticut has the 5th strongest gun laws), San Bernardino (California has THE strictest gun laws  in the country) and even though the attack on the Republican congressmen happened in Virginia (ranked 21st) the weapons were purchased in Illinois (which has the 9th strictest gun laws).

So based upon these observations one should conclude that gun control would not be the solution. Obviously the solution lies with controlling the human element, either through moral teachings or incarceration. The best answer would be to not only expose the populous to moral teachings more frequently from early ages in schools (preschool comes to mind) but to also insist that certain moral standards be observed,  such as right from wrong (we have too many gray areas in our culture) and natural consequences, if you break a rule or law there is a direct consequence (we allow far too many “do overs” in life today).

The other solution is incarceration.  However we as a society have to adopt the mindset that incarceration facilities (prisons) are NOT daycare facilities for adults, nor country clubs where you get to choose your favorite activity for the day. They need to be PRISONS where life is so miserable you don’t want to come back, you want to strive to get out and never return. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2005 through 2010 just over 75% of criminals studied in 30 states were arrested for additional crimes within 5 years, just over 25% were arrested for “violent” crimes.  That statistic right there tells us that prisons are far too easy on the offenders.  If prisons are nice enough that 3/4’s of the inmates released are willing to go back by committing additional crimes, then the punishment of going to prison in the first place is not severe enough.  Prison conditions should be designed to make the inmates want to NEVER set foot inside another prison EVER! If an inmate wants to have access to a library, they should have earn that privilege, it should not be an expectation just because “I am here” it should be given to me.  If you want to ride horses, if the particular institutions has that available, you have to earn the privilege. Because that is exactly what it is, a PRIVILEGE, not a right!

Average Red Blooded American Citizens abide by the rules and laws of society, we don’t ask for special treatment and certainly not if we break the rules.

Last week President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accords, which former President Obama had signed on to. First of all it will take several years for us to get out (estimates are around the year 2020) and secondly according to former Secretary of State Kerry, there were no “Mandates” in the agreement to start with, all stated goals were “voluntary”.

So, the United States departure from “voluntary” participation should not be a big deal. Supposedly Syria and Venezuela are the only two other countries that did not sign on. I would think that Syria, a country in the midst of civil war, would not be concerned with climate change. Venezuela did not sign on supposedly, “because the proposed measures do not go far enough”. Considering a huge portion of Venezuela’s revenue comes from the sale of fossil fuel (Oil) I am betting they are not “really” interested in global regulatory structures that are going to prohibit growth of oil sales.

Another reason we should not be wasting time and resources on international concern over climate change is because it is not a proven fact (there are many theories) that humanity is the cause or that humans can effectively do anything to stop it. I contend that while it is a certainty that climate change exists, it is a natural and cyclical part of the function of nature. Because humans do exists as a part of nature we do have a minor localized effect on our surroundings. To think that man can do anything of significance to alter nature on such a large-scale is both arrogant and ludicrous.

Lets look back into the not so distant past. Between 1970 and 1979 there were no less than sixty-four articles that appeared in well-known publications of the time, and who knows how many hundreds in lesser known outlets. Remember back then there was not wide-spread use of the Internet and no such thing as modern “Social Media”. Information was disseminated via print. A listing of the number of articles as stated above by year; ’70 – 9, ’71 – 6, ’72 – 9, ’73 – 2, ’74 – 9, ’75 – 13, ’76 – 1, ’77 – 4, ’78 – 8 and ’79 – 3.  All of these articles were warning of the coming “Ice Age”, that’s right, in the 1970’s “Global Cooling” was the great fear. Now to be fair, even then there were some who warned of global warming.  There were calls to outlaw internal combustion engines, place rigid controls on marketing new products that might cause pollution and possible limits on pollution.  One researcher even said, “We will be forced to sacrifice democracy by the laws that will protect us from further pollution”.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s the prevalent cry became “Global Warming”, now we have “Climate Change”. It is all semantics because they don’t anymore know now that the earth is warming than they did in the ’70’s that the earth was cooling.

Lets look at today, did you know that there are several greenhouse gases? I have seen articles that say as many as twelve of them, but there are only five that are the major source of concern for the “Global Warming” crowd.  They are (listed on order of concentration of total atmosphere) water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. In addition, there is a lesser group of “pollutants” known as fluorocarbons that come into play. Now let us apply a little perspective here.  Note that I listed these gases in the order of concentration of the total atmosphere. That was on purpose, do you ever hear water vapor mentioned by the media when they discuss Global Warming? How about nitrous oxide or ozone?  I certainly don’t. Until I did just a little research on my own I never heard that these were part of the “Greenhouse” gas group.  Far and away the greenhouse gas most reported in the media is carbon dioxide. I have on rare occasions heard methane mentioned, but only in passing and most recently because they have discovered hundreds of large craters in Siberia expelling methane.

The perspective I want to bring to this is as follows: we are talking about just barely more than 3% of our total atmosphere is composed of all these greenhouse gases combined. Moreover 99.9% of the remaining 3% by volume is water vapor (a completely ignored greenhouse gas). Do you see what a small portion of our atmosphere we are really discussing?  Here is a simplistic breakdown to further illustrate the point. Our atmosphere is made up of roughly 75% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 3% Water vapor and 1% of all other gasses combined. Of the other four “major” greenhouse gases, they stack up as follows (again in order of concentration of the whole atmosphere): Carbon Dioxide .04%, Methane .0002%, Nitrous Oxide .00003%, and Ozone .000007%.  Also as a note of interest, Ozone is not a naturally emitted gas.  It forms in the stratosphere as the result of a chemical reaction between several other gases and the sun’s radiation energy.  You may remember several years ago the hysteria over the growing hole in the ozone layer. This is where the flurocarons come into play.

To think that this highly complex world was created by God and that we as mere humans can significantly alter it, is the height of arrogance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read a story recently on the web about a farmer in California  that has been fined 2.8 million dollars for plowing his land without a permit from the U. S. Army  Corps of Engineers. Now it is not unusual for California to impose ridiculous regulations on their residents and then follow-up with state governmental sanctions.  However the federal government is now getting involved.

This farmer purchased 450 acres of land with the intent to plant and harvest a wheat crop. Now as I understand it, the land did have some areas on it that where covered under a 1970’s law as “wetlands or waters of the United States” and the new owner, being aware of this law, hired a “consulting” firm to evaluate the land. He knew that these “areas” should not be plowed and tried to avoid such designated places.  However he did plow parts of the restricted area. The crop was planted but the owner was not allowed to harvest it because the Army Corps of Engineers an California Central Valley Water Quality Board issued a cease  and desist order demanding all work on the property come to an end. I am sure this cost the land owner several thousand dollars.

Now they are imposing a multi-million dollar fine, all because he did not get a permit to plow his own property. I would venture a guess that it is probably tens times or more than the land is worth. They are not even claiming that he was damaging or threatening an endangered species. This fine is purely because he did not get a piece of paper allowing him to plow. Supposedly the very law that they are fining him over has an exemption specifically addressing farmers plowing their fields. So the law indicates that the owner does not need a permit, but the government is prosecuting him for not getting a permit that the law seemingly says he does not need.

If the EPA and state governments continue to make such egregious regulations and decisions that discourage farmers from planting crops because of fear that they will be fined or prosecuted it will have very detrimental effects on food production in our country. Once again the regulatory agencies are taking laws that were intended to help society by reducing pollution and using them to control the behavior of farmers to suit their political environmental agendas.

In our current political climate we have a group of people who have been dubbed “Snowflakes”.  Now I am not sure where the term originated, whether it was a “Leftist” term designed to show solidarity with the ideals of the “One World” movement or a derogatory term from the “Right” indicating the “go with the flow” mind-set of the our current “Millennial” generation. Either way they have a Utopian view of the world. “If only we could just get along with each other, love one another as human beings, then everything would be perfect!”

This reminds me of a time when I was younger and there was a movement known as “Flower Children”. It developed in the late 1950’s and through the 1960’s.  This movement was born out of the “sex, drugs and rock & roll” mentality.  They believed that if we had free love and lived in “Communes” where everyone was “equal” and loved one another, then we could develop a perfect society.  Their philosophy, much like the current “Snowflakes”, was peace and co-existence among people.  Once again the flaw in the perception of their movement was that “EVERYONE” just wants to get along. The reality could not possibly be further from the truth!

Just in case someone living under a rock missed it, there was a terrorist attack in Manchester , England!  It occurred at a concert performed by a fairly high-profile celebrity, aimed at primarily a young female audience.  The celebrity targeted was quite shaken and has suspended their concert tour for a time, rightfully so. However there is another celebrity of somewhat higher acclaim, who went to social media and posted that “we need to Unite” and come together as one world with no borders,  or something to  that effect.

What the second celebrity fails to realize or acknowledge is that “Uniting” is a two-way proposition, both parties have to be working toward a common goal. In the case of terrorism, which is what the Manchester bombing was, the terrorists are NOT working toward the same goal as this celebrity. The terrorists want to KILL everyone that does not agree with their position. They DO NOT want to negotiate  or  reason with people who do not agree with them. The celebrity wants to bring them (the terrorists) into her circle of friends and “love” them. You can “love” someone all you want and still be just as dead when they slit your throat or blow you up. Somehow those two positions do not seem to be conciliatory.

Now the representatives of the “Muslim” position, want us to believe “Islam” is a religion of peace and belonging.  Peaceful religions do not stand by and implicitly condone the be-heading of those who do not belong (non-believers). The Christian “religions”(and there are many) have long denounced the practices of the “Reformation” when they too adopted a “believe or else” attitude. Christ himself preached to the non-believers, He offered hope, not condemnation.  Now He did state that those who did not accept His offering of eternal relations with God faced a judgement, not by man but by God himself, when the end times arrive.  We do not see many Muslim leaders denouncing the barbaric acts of Al Qaeda or ISIS, (Be-headings, Burning people alive in cages, or throwing people off of roofs or cliffs for their sexuality) in the public or social media.

Neither side of this religious conflict wants the other to prevail. Muslims or Islamist’s (whatever they want to go by) do not want Christianity to survive. They stoop to violence and barbaric acts to further their cause. Christians do not think that non-believers (the lost) will ascend to heaven when Christ comes again. However they are willing to tolerate non-Christian behavior and let God pass judgement on the non-believer at the right time. Each side takes a different approach.

Muslims (or Islamist’s) fundamentalists say convert or die, we will judge you and kill you if you do not agree with us! Christians say “We have an answer, believe “with” us or risk facing eternal condemnation, not by us but rather by God himself.”

Do you see the contrast? Muslims judge in the here and now.  Christians leave the judgement up to GOD.