New Years Resolutions

Okay, now that Christmas dinner leftovers are almost gone, and you have put the memory of that New Years party well behind you, it is again time for retrospection of events and promises made last January and making resolutions for the coming new year. Well, it is a tradition, even if a futile one.

So, I dug out the old resolution list and it occurred to me that it actually resembles more of a bucket list than a list of resolutions. There are the usual resolutions: lose weight, exercise, drink less, eat healthy, swear less, spend less, save more; you know, the good intentions that seldom last the week let alone the year.

Then you have the ones driven by guilt: visit the relatives, visit that old friend you haven’t seen since high-school, call your mother (not easy for me, since mine has been dead for quite a while; maybe I should scratch that off the list), call your out of state brother or sister (and say what? After “how are you” there is always an awkward silence).

Next, you have those nebulous, well-intended goals that one can never quite tell have been kept or not: be a better person (as opposed to what?), be less pessimistic (in this political climate? Good luck with that, this is an election year), be kinder and more considerate of others (is this even possible when you drive California freeways?).

Finally, you have the impossible dreams: finish your novel, write a novel, visit a foreign country (no, not Los Angeles), see Machu Picchu, go to Peterson Automotive museum (right, I have never been there), pay off your Christmas credit card charges before they charge interest, don’t touch your savings this year.

Like I said, it amounts to more of a bucket list than a list of resolutions. I seem to just repeat the same list every year… with no progress. Maybe someday, I might actually do one of these, but usually by mid-January, they aren’t even a memory.

This year, I think I will try a more realistic approach, maybe something like:

Take long naps; eat what tastes good; drink in moderation… most of the time; avoid the freeways and idiot drivers (I thought about taping down my middle fingers, but people would think I was a foreigner); wait until two days before an election, then vote for the loudest person; just figure everything is going to that dark place in a hand basket (this one never seems to be far off the mark anyway); swear silently… unless really ticked off; pray I wake up in the morning… but not too early; put off last year’s list to next year.

Okay, I think I can live with this list. I wish every one of you a very happy and prosperous new year.

Just Another Cult

Is there a particular organized religion in this country or around the world that presents a clear and present danger? Let’s take a look at that. Catholics? No, they haven’t killed anyone for not practicing Catholicism in centuries. Protestants? Well, there are a lot of Protestant organizations, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Evangelicals, Baptist, Episcopal, Adventist, Quakers, I probably missed some, but I haven’t heard of any mass killings by any of these groups. Ah, the Mormons. Nope, not for a very long time. Mennonites, or Amish, Buddhists? No. Hindus. Nothing there either. Scientology? Sorry, they’re clean too.

How about Muslims? There may be a problem with the perception of the “religion of peace” as being a threat. Seems it’s not too peaceful to lop off heads, burn people alive in cages, throw folks you don’t like off tall buildings, blow up groups of people as well as themselves, shoot masses of innocent people while they are trying to enjoy a party or concert. Yes, there are people who commit these atrocities in the name of Islam. But are they really Muslims?

There is an identity for people like this; it’s called a cult. One definition in the Oxford American dictionary for a cult is; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. Yep, these radical “Muslim” groups fit that description quite nicely. They have hijacked an entire religion for their own nefarious purposes. It’s what cults do.

Some of the worst cults have a messianic leader – Jim Jones on Guyana; David Koresh, Branch Davidians; Charlie Manson; Shoko Asahara; Marshall Applewhite; Luc Jouret;  and Joseph Di Mambro; the list goes on and keeps growing. In recent times, we could easily add Osama Bin Laden of Al Qaida, Mullah Omar of the Taliban, the late Abubakar Shekau of Boko Haram currently replaced by Mahamat Daoud, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and now Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS (or ISIL of Daesh).

This is not a complete list and it seems to grow constantly. It is also not exclusively a Muslim membership, although Islam is the most recent religion hijacked for destructive cults these days. Followers of Charlie Manson believed he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. Jim Jones also used the Christian bible to entice members into his cult.

In 1984, Joseph Di Mambro and Luc Joret formed the Order of the Solar Temple based loosely on Rosicrucians and Knights Templar. They succeeded in convincing their followers that an environmental apocalypse was coming and to escape it members needed to be “transformed” by fire to ascend to a planet orbiting Sirius.

In 1997, the Prophet Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult convinced its 39 members that the Hale-Bopp comet would bring a UFO to rescue them from the “end of times.” They all draped themselves in purple cloaks and drank poison believing they would be raptured.

Aum Shinriko was a cult formed in Japan during the ‘90s. They released deadly sarin nerve gas into a Tokyo subway tunnel in 1997. The group’s leader Shoko Asahra preached that the end of the world was near and his followers would be the only ones to survive.

The Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) cult has also convinced the followers of the caliphate that the apocalypse is imminent. They use Sharia law, which isn’t any sort of codified law, and only consists of what the Caliph and his henchmen say is the law, to intimidate, regulate, and in effect oppress their followers exactly like every other cult has throughout history.

The cult of the Daesh is not the Islamic faith nor is it consistent with the Quran any more than followers of Jim Jones or Charlie Manson were Christians following the tenets of the Bible.

It is always easy to paint groups with a wide brush, and maybe I have been guilty of this on occasion, but that doesn’t make it right. The cults that have perverted the Muslim religion do not represent or speak for that religion. They are a tragic aberration of an old and noble religion.

So, what do we do to protect our families and ourselves? Vigilance and, dare I say it, profiling. We know there are no Christians in ISIS. Don’t look for the next terrorist killings to come from people going to churches. We do know that ALL of the recent terror plots have originated from people who believed themselves Muslims.

Note, however, I did not say to judge them. Just because a person prays five times a day and goes to a mosque does not mean he or she is a terrorist. If they are stockpiling military style weapons, massive ammunition, and explosives, this could be a good indication of possible trouble. Alert the authorities. If they are spouting hateful doctrine against America or other religions, they might be worth having authorities investigate.

Again, note that I don’t advocate taking action against these people. Who knows, he or she might just be opinionated columnists.

Another Paris Tragedy

No, this tragedy wasn’t caused by Muslim terrorists. Although, our President believes the terrorists were created by climate change. Go figure…

The Global Conference on Climate Change in Paris this month is bound to produce more onerous restrictions on everyone, except the major polluters, China, Russia, and India. Beijing might actually do something about the “greenhouse gasses” if they could only read the reports through the smog. Most of the time seeing the full Golden Gate Bridge seems more likely than finding the Forbidden City in the smog.

The Kyoto Protocol – one that we have not officially signed on to – gave the United Nations sweeping authority over sovereign nations to fight “Global Warming” but conveniently left out developing nations as well as China and India while it called for draconian measures for the United States. Even though we have not officially agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, the left in this country are determined to apply the restraints to us anyway.

Obama used his pen to decimate the coal industry and in the mean time foist “green energy” on the populace. Here in California, where the Democrats run virtually everything, we are being forced to “cut back” on carbon use. The governor even wanted to force everyone to use fifty-percent less gas. Thankfully, even the Democrats realized that would be completely unworkable. But don’t relax just yet. I’m sure this will come up again in the not too distant future.

I could cite reams of evidence to rebuff the “scientific” data that surrounds the Climate Change issue (previously called Global Warming, but had to be changed when the warming didn’t materialize). Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The climate is in fact changing. It has changed for millennia, and will continue to change as long as the earth exists. The core of the issue is, do humans have the power to cause the climate to change – one way or the other?

I seriously doubt we could ever cause the climate to change in any direction. Otherwise, we would outlaw hurricanes, flooding, drought, blizzards, ice storms, and tornados and require the scientists to work their magic to relegate these plagues to history. But no government can do that because it is not within the human realm to change the weather. So, how could humans be so omnipotent to be able to cause bad weather when we can’t make good weather? Remember Mark Twain said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” That’s because we can’t!

Greenhouse gasses? Sure, they exist. Without them, the earth would resemble the Martian landscape. Are we causing them? There is no doubt human activity contributes to these gasses. But there are many other factors that spew greenhouse gasses and cause the weather patterns on earth.

There are currently about fifty active volcanoes on the planet spewing out, guess what, greenhouse gasses! Is anyone at the Paris conference suggesting plugging up these gas generators? Oh, but that would not be feasible.

So why should humanity make radical and often unfeasible lifestyle changes just to keep from adding a very small percentage of gas to the already naturally occurring mass? And is it really about climate change?

I believe the whole fiasco is not about climate change but more about change. The mantra of the left is always “change.” It doesn’t seem to matter if that change is for the better or worse, just change. It is a badge of power to cause others to do what they would not naturally do. And no one wears that badge more proudly than the left.

But the Pope is advocating the climate change cause too. Pope Francis is a well-meaning person, but he is also an avowed socialist. He is causing wholesale changes in the Vatican and in the Catholic Church. Many of those changes are good and long overdue, but he is out of his league when he pokes his Miter into the realm of science.

The number-one promoters of Climate Change theories are the scientists carefully selected by and for the United Nations. That alone should tell us this agenda is more about power than climate. The UN continually works to undermine the sovereignty of its member nations. This is but the most recent example of that power quest.

The only change I am interested in is removing enough Democrats from power to put this nation back on a path to restoring the greatness and prestige it once had. The climate will do whatever nature deems it to do. We either accept that fact and adapt or join the dinosaurs in extinction. And that is probably the one solution not being discussed in Paris.

Giving Thanks

So, what did you do on the day before Black Friday? Officially, though, it’s still called Thanksgiving, but it seems crass commercialism has trumped thankfulness these days. For me, I was thankful that I wouldn’t be in that ball of human congestion and mayhem the day after Thanksgiving. I do most of my shopping on-line.

Yes, some 400 or so years ago Pilgrims sat down with their Native American benefactors to break bread, drink beer, and give thanks for their first harvest (no they didn’t televise football games that year). This bucolic scene of people at odds finally celebrating together in Plymouth Colony was a far cry from the death and destruction meted out by the Native Americans just weeks before at Jamestown in Virginia.

What I find amazing about this picture is that any of the English colonies ever survived. These people must have been the most naïve humans on the face of the planet. They left England for a number of reasons, to practice their religion in peace, for commerce, and merely to settle in a new land. They took their clothes, some brought their families, a few tools, and other possessions; climbed aboard cramped, primitive ships; and sailed for months to reach a land they knew practically nothing about.

Most only brought enough provisions to sustain them for a short period, and apparently none of the Pilgrims had the slightest knowledge of farming. Did they expect supermarkets in this new land?

The inhabitants of Jamestown were massacred, but before that, most of them starved to death. In the celebrated Plymouth Colony, there was starvation as well. That would have been their end too if not for an alliance with local Native Americans that taught them how to grow food. That first Thanksgiving was about being truly thankful to God and their Native American benefactors.

Today in the United States, most of us still give thanks, but few thank those Native Americans that made our existence in this land possible. Yes, it‘s a fact that not all Native Americans were helpful. Many took umbrage at the alien invaders. And over time, even those that aided the new arrivals were pushed off their land. But in reality, this is nothing more than a repeat of the story of civilization. History is replete with stories of conquest and expansion. One group, tribe, or country, defeats another, takes the land and kills or displaces the vanquished.

One of the last efforts at conquest and expansion by another country, Germany, took place a mere 77 years ago and ended in disaster and defeat in 1945. Now, the boundaries on every plot of ground on the earth have been established and with luck settled. For this too we can be thankful.

So, what else do we have to be thankful for these days? That list might be a lot smaller than one with items we would not be thankful for: We have troops still fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The Russians are threatening our NATO position in Eastern Europe. Iran signed a nuclear agreement that many said was a very bad one. Muslim terrorists including ISIS and Al Qaida are still at large and slaughtering innocent people. The global economy is still shaky and ours isn’t much better. We still have homeless and jobless people in this country. Our healthcare system is in shambles. The government is growing exponentially. You have less than 30 days to max out your credit cards for Christmas…. Okay, enough negativity! It was supposed to be a day of thanks.

Well, on a personal note, I have much I gave thanks for: I have the greatest wife in the world – must be the greatest, she has stuck with me for fifty years. My kids are all healthy, employed and living in relative comfort. Two of our four grandkids have given us two lovely great-grandsons, and all are healthy. My wife and I, while not rich, are in a relatively comfortable state, and we have our health. We have good friends and neighbors. They televise football on Thanksgiving. I have all I truly need and am indeed thankful.

And one more thing to be most thankful for; Obama will be gone in a little over a year. That nightmare might be over. Now, if we could replace a few more democrats here in California, we might have something to truly be thankful for.

Why France?

Unless you have been in a cave behind a waterfall this Month, you are likely painfully aware of the massacre of innocent people in Perris. Seven or maybe eight Muslim jihadists with ISIS affiliation attacked and brutally murdered some 129 innocent people simultaneously at six different sites. But why did they choose France for this heinous act?

As Willie Sutton replied when asked, why he robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.” If we could ask the planner of this massacre why France, he might reply, “Because that’s where the lambs are.”

That is indeed where the lambs are! France is one huge gun-free zone. Randomly shooting innocent people in that country is like “shooting fish in a barrel.” The gun laws of France are an incredibly complicated mess of restrictions and prohibitions that virtually deny ordinary citizens the ability to own a weapon or buy ammunition for one. To use a weapon for self-defense is strictly prohibited.

True, other European nations have onerous gun laws too, but the French have other factors that, when added to the easy pickings, may have made them a prime target.

The long-time relationship with ex-French Algeria has left France with a burgeoning Muslim population that is increasingly calling for Sharia law. Muslims block the thoroughfares with huge crowds kneeling on prayer rugs at prayer times. The French population of Muslims in 2014 was 4,704,000, that is 7.5 percent of the entire population. The projection of increase at that time put the Muslim population in 2030 at 10.3 percent

France is legally prohibited from collecting statistics based on race or religion, so the actual number of Muslims may be far greater. With the “refugee” situation now, though, that number will only grow at an alarming pace.

Please note that I merely called them refugees, not Syrian refugees. Many of these, seemingly mostly young men, are from a number of Muslim countries. Are these immigrants being screened and to what depth?

In January, two men barged into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris and killed 11 people. Both were Muslim jihadists seeking revenge for a cartoon of Muhammad. Leaving the building, they killed a police officer and several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region, where a further five were killed and 11 wounded. All participants in this massacre were members of Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaida's branch in Yemen.

The Gatestone Institute, an international policy council, issued a report titled The Islamization of France in 2013. Here are some interesting quotes gleaned from the report:

“Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?" — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman for Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.

And: "The Islamic movement will become a system of life under your nose. Your wife, French women, the people of France, will live under the Islamic movement, even if you don't like it. Most of the residents of Paris are Muslims. Allah willing, most of the French system will be according to Islamic Sharia law. Most of the residents of France will be Muslims, Allah willing." – a British Islamist said this in a video posted on YouTube on January 20, 2014.

Is this merely jihadist bluster? Maybe, but look what is happening in that country. First Charlie Hebdo, now a coordinated Paris massacre with 129 dead. Also, there has been a rash of car burnings and other “protests” by French Muslims in the past few years. Some 40,000 cars were burned in 2014 alone. French President Francois Hollande has called the shootings and bombings "an act of war."

France has suffered greatly and this may be just the beginning. Germany and England are increasing their Muslim population with more “refugees”, and many other European countries have agreed to take “refugees.” President Obama recently ordered the US to take 10,000 of these “refugees” promising to perform a strict screening.

All in the free world sympathize and stand with France and the people of Paris in this moment of grief. But the free world needs to wake up and see this Islamic jihadist movement for what it is, a true act of conquest and subversion of democratic principals in favor of life under Sharia law for all. The consequences of not recognizing that are too terrible to even imagine.

A Strange Moment in DC

Things have been somewhat slow here in Riverside County, so I hopped into my new teleporter and zipped through the ether to Washington, Iowa, to see how the election is shaping up in that early primary state. To my surprise, I landed in a bar in Washington, DC. Guess I haven’t quite gotten the hang of teleporting yet.

What the heck, since I was there anyway, I decided to belly up to the bar and sip a cold one. Before I could get the first sip, I heard some guy a couple of seats down say, “I’m the real Santa Clause.”

Well, that got my attention! All the pictures I have ever seen of Santa were of an oversized plush White man with a beard. This guy was dark-skinned, clean-shaven, and had a pair of ears that stuck out like taxicab doors at the airport. I noticed he was talking to some poor fellow that looked well out of place even in this bar.

Santa – I think his real name was Barry – said to this man, “You look like you’re not from around these parts. Foreigner, are you?”

The guy says, “Uh…”

Barry keeps up, “I’ll just bet you don’t have the proper documents to be in this country. Am I right?”

“Well…”

Barry’s on a roll, “Why, this is your lucky day, friend. I’m going to see to it that you get a social security number. Then you can get an EBT card and buy whatever your little heart desires. I’m even going to get you a drivers license, and let you stay in the country as long as you like.

“Uh…”

“Got a place to stay?” Barry asked.

“I’m at the…”

“Don’t worry, I will get you housing and a few dollars for mad money. Just give me a call at this number.” Barry scribbles something on a napkin.

“I don’t have a phone.”

Barry looked surprised and told a man in a suit standing nearby, “Get this man an Obama phone.”

“Have you registered to vote yet?”

“Uh…”

“No problem. I have the forms right here. Just sign your name, and you can vote for Democrats in every election.”

About that time another very wrinkled old black man butted in. “Hi Prez, how’s it hangin’”

“Al Sharptongue! You dog you! Just talking to my new friend here. He’s an undocumented immigrant. From… say, just where are you from?”

The man looked at the floor and said in a low voice, “England.”

Sharptongue went off, “Damn Prez, what you doing with this racist cracker. He ain’t no Illegal; he’s just some White freeloader from Europe.”

Barry said, “That right?”

“Well no sir, I am from England but I have immigrated here legally, and I own a medium-sized manufacturing company.”

Barry looked disappointed and a bit angry. “Well you can forget the EBT card and free phone, plus you’re on your own for housing. Don’t even try to vote. We will be watching you.”

I slugged down the rest of my beer and hit the teleporter. The atmosphere in that bar got real foul.

A Salute to Veterans

At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, major hostilities of World War I were formally ended when the Armistice with Germany went into effect. President Woodrow Wilson first proclaimed that day as Armistice Day for November 11, 1919. In proclaiming the holiday, he said:

"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations."

Congress passed a concurrent resolution on June 4, 1926, requesting that President Calvin Coolidge issue another proclamation to observe November 11 with appropriate ceremonies. A Congressional Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U.S. Code, Sec. 87a) approved May 13, 1938, made the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday: "a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as 'Armistice Day'."

In 1945, World War II veteran Raymond Weeks from Birmingham, Alabama, had the idea to expand Armistice Day to celebrate all veterans, not just those who died in World War I. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law on May 26, 1954, making Armistice Day a celebration of all Veterans. Congress amended the bill on June 1, 1954, replacing "Armistice" with "Veterans," and it has been known as Veterans Day since.

Every country owes a huge debt to those who fight and die for their sovereign nations. In the US, November 11 is reserved to acknowledge that debt and honor those who brave men and women who stand bravely in the service to guard and defend our country and keep the world safe.

World War I was a horrendous meat grinder involving 4.73 million service members. Of that number, 53,402 of our finest were killed and another 204,002 were wounded. This was the first major conflict for the US since the Civil War. Although billed as the “War to end all Wars, ” just 27 years later we were in an even larger conflict on both hemispheres of the globe involving 16.11 million service members. In this conflict, we lost 291,557 troops and 670,846 more were wounded.

It was right for Eisenhower to assign this day to the recognition of all men and women who served in every conflict. From the Korean War to today in Iraq and Afghanistan we continue to fight the good fight. Many or our finest have sacrificed their lives, limbs, and minds on the front lines of the fight.

Many others stood in support of those brave troops on the front lines, often sacrificing their lives or limbs doing so. It is fitting that we honor those men and women as well. While Memorial Day is a day of remembering the men and women who gave their lives and those who perished while in service, Veterans Day celebrates the service of all the untold U.S. Military veterans.

As one proud Veteran to another, I stand in salute to all who serve and all who have served.

The Fray: Round One

 Now that we have endured a few candidate debates for the two major parties, I suppose it is time to start getting fired up over at least one of them. Believe me when I say I have tried, but just can’t seem to bring myself to generate much enthusiasm for any of them.

I have never voted for a democrat in a Presidential election, but if push came to shove, I would probably cast my vote for Jim Webb. He comes off as the one honest man in a field of shysters. The other Democratic candidates aren’t even worth my consideration. Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley are all socialists, but only Sanders admits to being one. Lincoln Chafee doesn’t know what party he belongs to. He has been a Republican and an Independent. Now he thinks he is a Democrat. Not many in the party believe that, and neither do I, although I am sure he doesn’t fit in the Republican Party either.

As for issues, all but Webb believe in wealth redistribution. I find it more than a little hypocritical for these millionaires to claim they are for the middle-class when they don’t have the slightest idea who the middle class are. But they would make the rich pay for everything. How much are Hillary and Bill worth? How much have they soaked their “Clinton Foundation” for?

On the other side, we have the Republicans. I have nearly always voted Republican and probably will again. But I may be holding my nose doing it this time.

Trump is the leader of the pack. Why? Does he have any idea what the issues even are let alone how to solve them? He has a talent for telling people what they want to hear, but that’s what a good negotiator always does. That doesn’t necessarily mean we would come out on the good end of the deal. Words are cheap. Deeds are seldom easy or cheap.

You have to hand it to “The Donald”, though. He is one hellova chess player. He entered the race with very little hope of even making a showing – again – and perfectly read the party’s growing contempt for RINOs as well as the public’s disdain for politicians. Trump is the quintessential non-politician. Bombastic to the point of absurdity, Trump is playing directly to those who are fed up with political correctness and politicians in general. But what happens if he is elected? Worse, what happens if he is nominated as the party candidate? Has he bought the office for another Clinton as Ross Perot did for Bill?

Then we have the good Doctor Carson. I haven’t decided which office he is actually running for – maybe he hasn’t either. He seems to be aligned with Trump both in invective and outspokenness. Maybe he is campaigning to be Trump’s Vice-President.

Carly Fiorina is a very nice lady, smart, experienced leader, political outsider and could make a good first woman President. Carly has done well in the debates and shows she knows her stuff. One might think that with the country clamoring for firsts – first Black President, first woman President – Fiorina would be a shoe-in. Too bad the polls favor the woman from the other party for this race.

Then there are the “conservative” politicians, Ted Cruise, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Well, Paul is really more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but who votes Libertarian? His father learned that bitter lesson. As for Cruise and Rubio, I don’t see either as a good draw against the anointed Democrat, Hillary.

Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal both might have been the favorites at one time. They have experience and very good resumes, but it’s hard to beat bombast when it comes to winning polls.

Mike Huckabee said the one thing I had been wanting to hear from candidates on taxes. He is for a consumer tax to replace taxes on income. This, in my estimation, is the fairest form of taxation. Everyone pays the same and no loopholes can ever weasel their way into it. I don’t see a preacher fairing well against the godless horde of Democrats, though.

Then there is yet another Bush. Please tell me it isn’t so! No matter how nice a guy or even qualified he might be, there will never be another Bush elected to the Presidency – at least not in this century.

As for the rest, well, do you remember who they are? I’m pretty sure not many other voters do.

Thankfully, we Californians have until next June to sort this all out – or get so sick of it all that you just turn it off.

This Earth Ain’t Big Enough for the 10 Billion of Us!

If you drive the freeways, and who doesn’t, in this state, I am pretty sure you have at one time or another thought about population control. You would not be alone, and there are some very smart people doing just that.

The 2011 census puts the world population at some 7 billion. While that may seem like a lot, it is! But according to scientists we are at about 70 percent of the level where life as we know it will be unsustainable. So, what happens when we reach that magic 10 billion number? The movie industry has made good money speculating on just this issue. Remember Hunger Games, Blade Runner, and Soilent Green among others? I even remember one movie where people could only legally live 35 years.

Fiction? Maybe. But what does happen when we reach that magic 10 billion census figure? According to the World Bank, the fertility rate is an average 2.5 children per female, a rate sustained for decades.

So when will we reach saturation? According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects report, the world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0. According to the UN high estimates, we could reach 9 billion by 2040 and be at 11 billion by 2050.

The World Bank shows a fertility rate decline in most of the productive nations, but the poor, third world countries continue to increase in fertility.

If you believe the scientists that give us that sustainability cutoff at 10 billion people, we could be in big trouble somewhere between 2040 (25 years from now!) and 2050. Of course, there are always those that will believe technology will solve the problem. Others will question even that there is a problem. Unlike the somewhat nebulous factors of climate change, though, population is a value very easily counted and the cause well known. The number of people and rate of change is a solid fact.

There are approximately 15.77 billion acres of inhabitable land on the face of the earth, about 10 percent of which is arable (suitable for growing food). That leaves about 14.2 billion acres for housing, manufacturing, and businesses, and 1.6 billion acres for growing food. Can we grow enough food on 1.6 billion acres to feed 10 or 11 billion people? Will there be enough fresh water for irrigation and human activity? Scientists think this is about the limit of our capacity to sustain life.

The UN is counting on the fertility rates to decrease steadily to 2.0 by 2020 and some magical lower number thereafter. The thing is they don’t say how or why. The world rate has been at 2.5 for decades. Just what will cause that to drop?

The highest fertility rate (CIA World Fact Book) is in Niger and the lowest is in Singapore. Scan the chart and you will find that the poorest countries have the highest fertility rate. Does that mean if we throw money at the poor countries their fertility rate will drop? An absurd notion! But I am certain wealth and education are factors in restraining the fertility rate. Unfortunately, wealth and education also decrease the mortality rate.

 A doctor once told me that we live too long. Aside from the fact that this is not something you want to hear from your doctor, it is the truth! Each decade shows an increase in the longevity of people in educated and wealthy countries.

I don’t have ready answers to this knotty problem, and I’m not likely to live long enough to see the worst of it. But this is a problem far bigger than global climate change and one that desperately needs sober discussion. Sadly, it is not even on the to-do list of ours or most other governments.

The Power of Nature and The Impotence of Humans

I used to believe that the ‘e’ in email stood for ‘evil.’ A few years back I received over 500 emails in one day, mostly advertising penis enlargement, or selling Viagra or Cialis. They say sex sells. Apparently, not being able to have sex doesn’t do too bad either.

Spam filters have gotten much better. I still receive a few junk emails, but most of what I now get is from friends. For the most part, they are either of a political nature or humorous… sometimes both. On very rare occasions, I will get something so interesting that I just have to share it. Like the email a friend sent directing me to the website http://www.forbiddenknowledge.tv/videos/astrophysics/something-is-affecting-the-entire-solar-system.html.

The title of the site, "Global Warming" is Solar-System-Wide, just begged for me to look at it. There is a video included that I found very interesting.

As we have seen, the climate Chicken Littles have gone from calling their Armageddon theory of ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Global Climate Change’ because the warning trend didn’t actually develop like they had calculated.

Even though the planet may not be following the temperature trends expected, there are other severe weather anomalies setting records, and there can be no doubt the planet is experiencing some changes. The main argument over whether the changes are being caused by human activity may just be moot.

In 1997, Russian geophysicist, Alexei Dmitriev published a paper stating that the Solar System was starting to move through an area of space with more charged particles that were causing irreversible alterations to its planets. Note the plural planets. The video shows the changes that every planet – yes, even little Pluto – is going through along with those occurring on Earth.

The site stated that, “Dmitriev surmised that there was a probability that we were moving into a rapid temperature instability period, similar to the one that took place 10,000 years ago, when our current 6th Extinction began suddenly resulting in the swift demise of the Northern Hemisphere's megafauna (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, massive ground sloths and many other animals most people don't know once populated the North American Continent, including gigantic species of lions and camels).”

Amazing physical properties are changing throughout the solar system, from the magnetosphere of the sun, the reflectivity of Neptune and atmosphere of Mercury and Mars to fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field.

Why is this so interesting? Well, besides the fact that we have never before observed this phenomenon, the one outstanding feature is that there is scant possibility that humans could be causing it. Another interesting factor is that all of these changes appear to be occurring simultaneously – including Earth’s ‘Global Climate Change.’

Even the Pope and Al Gore would have to admit that it would be the height of arrogance to propose that humans are causing a synchronous change in the entire solar system. That is not to say that we should quit trying to clean harmful pollutants from the air we breath. It does, however, give cause to question the lengths we need to go to achieve breathable air and diminish or even negate the arguments for Armageddon due to manmade greenhouse gases.

Great Greasy Gobs of PC Doo-Doo

While Donald Trump has been making great headway in his campaign by stepping in piles of PC doo-doo, it looks like the runner-up, Dr. Ben Carson, has managed to step in one himself.

On an NBC (does anyone still watch that network?) broadcast of “Meet The Press”, Carson matter-of-factly said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.’’

Oh my, Dr. Carson, you have stepped in a particularly nasty pile that time. As to be expected, the left and the Muslim complainers all took issue with the statement. Interestingly, many of the more conservative pundits also railed against the good doctor’s opinion. In the end, though, a large swath of Americans agreed wholly with Carson’s statement.

Before the din becomes deafening, let’s look at what was said and give it a little critical analysis.

Contrary to what some claim, Dr. Carson did not say that a Muslim cannot become President. Such a statement would be entirely inaccurate. Even Obama has not been able to strip the First Amendment from the Constitution, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The US Constitution does stipulate that the President must be a natural-born citizen. Article II section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…

A foreign-born person would not be eligible to become President regardless of religion. Not a word is even implied in the constitution about any religious qualification for the office of President. But you knew that, and so did Dr. Carson.

Would it be wise to elect a Muslim to the Presidency? Not to put words into Carson’s mouth, I believe this is what he meant by expressing his opinion that he would not advocate for a Muslim becoming President.

Why not a Muslim? Simple! While there are many good Muslims both here and abroad, the tenets of Islam and Sharia law are entirely incongruent with the US Constitution. That’s not to say that a Muslim would not make a good president, but if that person would adhere strictly to his or her religion many laws would be violated.

When John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President, many people feared that the Pope would have the last word on Presidential issues. That didn’t happen. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner is a devout Catholic, yet he has never advocated in his job for any religious advantages.

Would a Muslim President proselytize or bring Sharia law to the US? Only good sense and integrity on the part of that person would prevent it.

Sharia is an abomination. There I have said it, and I will stand squarely behind my statement. I am not a theologian, but I have read the Quran and have researched Sharia law. First, it is not a universal, codified law. Every sect has its own version of Sharia, much of it is not even written down. The Muslim faithful are at the mercy of the whims of a Mullah, Caliph, or Ayatollah, often with no appeal or recourse. What is haram (forbidden) in one sect or even by an individual Mullah may not even be considered by another. Oppressive dictates on women are common, and punishments are far out of line with the severity of the “crimes”.

Under Sharia, we see punishments such as stoning for adultery – nearly always women – “honor” killings of women who have been raped, hands lopped off, heads lopped off, women beaten by husbands at the consent of Sharia, women not allowed to appear in public without a male relative escort, women required to wear burqas, and three-year-old girls being sold as brides.

This is not a law; it is an abhorrent violation of human rights and dignity. Could a Muslim President ignore these tenets and still be considered a good Muslim? That is the crux of Dr. Carson’s statement. It is also a moot point in this election, as I haven’t heard of any Muslim running for the office.

Here Come Da Pope!

Pope Francis has landed in America. That is rightfully a joyous occasion for some 76.7 million Roman Catholics in the country. Popes don’t visit often, only nine times since the first visit of Pope Paul VI in 1965. Seven of those visits were from the late Pope John Paul II.

As Popes go, it was appropriate that John Paul II was canonized a saint. He did much to further and clarify church doctrine. He also epitomized a life of church leadership and did much to show the evils of the socialist regime he grew up under in communist Poland.

Pope Francis (the humble?) talks a good talk and seems to be making changes for the better in church doctrine, or at least church administration of that doctrine. In the US and other countries where abortion is legal and divorce commonplace, he appears to have loosened the reigns on the rigid application of the doctrine. Some say that is progress; to others, it is an abomination.

While I am certain the Pope is a good man with the best of intentions, he is way out of his league criticizing capitalism and preaching the gospel of climate change. For an institution that has for millennia shown contempt for both economics and science, this Pope has scant qualifications to speak credibly to either.

In a world where we are quickly reaching the maximum sustainable capacity for population, the Pope could better use his bully pulpit for solutions to that problem. We currently have some 7 billion people on the face of this planet, with absolutely no way to increase that occupancy limit. We can’t just add on to the planet.

Credible scientists estimate that the earth can support no more than about 10 billion people. We are 70% of the way toward being maxed out, and our population is growing exponentially!

Are radical solutions now necessary? Probably not yet, but if we don’t start talking about it soon, they may become necessary. I’m talking euthanasia, abortion, forced childbirth restrictions… actions no one wants to see or hear about.

Where does the Pope fit into all of this? Well, first, Catholic Church doctrine alone is neither the culprit nor the solution. But the rigid opposition to contraceptives and all abortions does nothing to help the population problem. That is where a truly enlightened Pope might make substantial changes to church doctrine.

But looking at world population statistics, we find that ethnic fertility rates may be what drive the population explosion more than religious doctrine. For example, the fertility rate for Niger is 6.89 children per woman while that of the United States is 2.01 to 1. The lowest fertility rate is in Singapore at 0.8 children per woman. These statistics are provided by the CIA in 2014.

My point here is that if this Pope is to be as revolutionary as he professes to want to be, he should concentrate more on matters he is in a position to change and less on matters he likely does not understand and is not really qualified to tackle. Francis may commendably wash the feet of a few poor people, but has he or the church done much to alleviate the plight of the homeless? The Catholic Church is reportedly the richest organization on earth, but what is it doing directly to help the poor and destitute? For that matter, is there any major religious organization that is truly practicing the religious tenet of charity?

Pope Francis said to Castro, “people are important not ideas.” Okay, Pope. Put your money where your mouth is.

Thank God, I live in America. If I had said this about the Ayatollah in Iran, I would be in great peril.

Fleeing Hell

In the immortal words of Monty Python’s hit movie Spamalot, “Run away! Run Away!” This seems to be the advice being followed by great hordes of the Syrian and Iraqi civilian population. And who can blame them, with the insane conglomeration of warring factions in both countries. When the city where you live is being hit indiscriminately with barrel bombs from your own government, and blown up by artillery from forces opposing the government, as well as occupation by radical fanatics intent on decapitating those they don’t like with a dull butcher knife and burning people alive in cages, it’s time to get out of Dodge!

Just take what’s left of your family, stuff some clean underwear, a toothbrush, some baby formula, and your life savings in a daypack and head out. But where to? That is the big question. You can’t go to Iraq from Syria; it’s no better than where you come from. South? That’s all desert. The chances of making it to civilization are slim in that direction. Israel? Fat chance they would let you stay. North is the sea and Turkey. Beyond lies civilization – or something far more civilized than the war-torn hell back home.

So, they take their chances crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy, overcrowded boats. Some make it, some don’t. The lucky ones arrive in a country that wants nothing to do with them. Other countries, like Germany, welcome them with open arms – and open checkbooks. All they have to do is get there. That turns out to be a major obstacle. Most of the countries along the way don’t want the refugees to pass. Why is anybody’s guess.

I read and hear comments all the time like, “most of the refugees look like able-bodied young men. Why don’t they fight for their own homeland?” Also, “why should we allow more Muslims in our country? They will just bring their conflict here!”

Maybe those who have never fled wars, tyranny, and oppression will never understand the situation. It is far too easy to sit on our easy chairs in front of our flat screen TVs watching the plight of these people and go “tisk-tisk, too bad” or form easy opinions.

Those who have, or have family who has fled their homeland at one time know the heart-wrenching choice that is made. It is no easy decision to leave everything they have and everything they know just to wind up where everything is foreign – the customs, the money, the religion, the language, the people, and even the cities – and arrive with nothing only to be at the mercy of complete strangers and a strange government.

But is it fair to expect only a select few countries to accept these refugees? The numbers I have seen are on the order of some 50,000 to England, and France, 10,000 to Norway, 800,000 to Germany…. There is even a push for the US to take in refugees.

Why has Europe and now the US been singled out to receive these people? Why not countries closer to their homeland, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Oman, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, or the Sudan? Why are Asian and South American countries not taking in any of these refugees? What about Australia, and Japan? Can’t the Russian Federation take any? Why must Europe be the snake that swallows the cow?

Make no mistake about it; I know well why these people are fleeing and how desperate they are to settle in a stable place. What I can’t understand is why the one global agency that purports to represent all the governments of the planet, and increasingly sticks its nose in the sovereignty of other countries has done nothing to alleviate the refugee problem. Why can’t the United Nations create a program to equitably distribute the refugees around the globe? With all the money we give the UN to waste propping up dictatorships and sending aid to countries that only confiscate it and sell it on the black market, why can’t the UN do something that is well within its charter and help the refugees? Can anyone tell me just what the United Nations is good for?

A Not So Rare (Earth) Dilemma

Rare earth production in the United States just got much rarer. California’s Mountain Pass mine owned by Molycorp – the country’s only active rare earth mine – just announced it would close in October.

Why should we care? Well, besides the loss of some 490 jobs in that remote section off I-15, it means that raw materials used in such every-day devices as your flat screen TV, cell phone, catalytic converter, and rechargeable batteries will now rely exclusively on the whims of mines in China.

More importantly, many industries rely on rare earths for computer memory; DVDs, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent lighting and much more will be impacted. The “Green Energy” jobs in the wind turbine industry need rare earths. Even our nation’s military uses rare earth in night-vision goggles, precision-guided weapons, communications equipment, GPS equipment, batteries, and other defense electronics. They are key ingredients for making the very hard alloys used in armored vehicles and projectiles that shatter upon impact.

Yes, that’s right, while rare earths are abundant in the US, Canada, and Australia, as well as Russia, Brazil, India and a few south Asian countries; China overwhelmingly controls the market … and the prices.

The ore containing rare earth elements was discovered in the 1940s, mining for the ore only began in earnest at Mountain Pass in 1952. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine was reported to be the dominant source of rare earth metals in the world. In 2002, the EPA closed the mine for “environmental” reasons. Molycorp got a mine permit in 2004, but mining didn’t resume until they obtained 1.5 billion dollar investment in 2012.

If you were a regular traveler on I-15 to and from Las Vegas, you probably watched the mountain of tailings to the north grow the last few years.

It is hard to compete with Chinese operations that don’t have to comply with environmental regulations. Molycorp filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in June of this year, saying they simply could not produce the metals profitably while being undercut by China.

Well, in a capitalist society, competition is the name of the game. An entity that can turn out a product for a lower price will nearly always dominate. Now inject government regulation into the equation and you no longer have a level playing field. I would not dare imply that capitalism or even, in this instance, environmental regulation is wrong. I’m just saying that every player deserves a fair shot. Monopolistic practices by environmentally unregulated Chinese mines cannot be in the best interest of this nation.

It is ironic that we depend on communist China for minerals essential to national defense and much of our lifestyles – especially since there is an abundance of these minerals right under our own feet. Maybe next we could have our bombers and bombs built in Syria and Afghanistan. Wouldn’t that be a fine idea?

‘Dumb and Dumber’ is Real in Sacramento

How much fuel do you use on a weekly basis? How much is used simply to get to work? If you were told you must cut your fuel use by half—that’s right 50% -- how would that affect you? If the price of fuel was taxed, so the total was around $10 per gallon – while the rest of the nation paid about $2.50 per gallon – how you feel about that? If you were rationed only enough gas to make it to work three days a week, what would you do? If you were limited by mileage police to drive only an arbitrary number of miles-per-week, what would you do?

If you are okay with any of the above, then you will love SB350 now circulating in the California Assembly. The author, State Senate President pro-Tem, Kevin De Leon and Governor Jerry Brown love the idea. So do Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer. The Pope loves it too.

Following Jerry Brown’s meeting with the Pope, he got the religion of climate change and is proselytizing it throughout government. De Leon converted, but then again he seems to have never seen a goofy idea he wasn’t for.

Now we are stuck with two State Senate bills, SB32 and SB350 intended to make a big dent in the 2 percent of the overall greenhouse gasses generated by California. This is akin to a little boy peeing in the ocean being told to hold it because it might raise the level and flood Topeka, Kansas.

Is the climate changing? Well, duh, it has since the beginning of time, and will continue to change long after the climate zealots are long gone. The Sahara desert was once a lush, verdant, area with species of creatures now long extinct. Was California air the cause? Was any human activity the cause of this phenomenon? I seriously doubt it.

Is the greenhouse effect real? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, making Californians or even all Americans unilaterally bear the burden and painfully sacrificing to reduce a miniscule amount of greenhouse gas is not merely unjust, it is unwarranted.

SB32 will give the California Air Resources Board unlimited authority to require Californians to do whatever the CARB feels is necessary to meet the arbitrary quotas for greenhouse gas reduction. SB350 will require Californians to reduce use of vehicle fuel by a flat 50%. While the mechanism to enforce that reduction is nowhere spelled out in SB350, SB32 gives the CARB full authority to do whatever it wants to make that happen. You can bet it will result in draconian measures for all of us.

Of course, we could all simply go out and buy electric vehicles – at some $100,000+ a pop. Or we could all carpool, but only on days when the driver can buy gas.

There are good ideas and there are bad ones. On a scale of one to ten (ten being euphoric, and one being horrible) SB32 and SB 350 is a minus-ten. I am convinced that the intent of the Democrats in Sacramento is to reduce the population of this state to zero – zero jobs and zero people. These bills will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Take Responsibility

In the wake of yet another tragic shooting, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the cause or causes of these events. First, I decided to look up a word that we should all be familiar with in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

Responsibility | noun

the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone: women bear children and take responsibility for child care.

• the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something: the group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders.

• the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization: we would expect individuals lower down the organization to take on more responsibility.

• (often responsibilities) a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation: he will take over the responsibilities of overseas director.

• [in sing. ] (responsibility to/toward) a moral obligation to behave correctly toward or in respect of: individuals have a responsibility to control personal behavior.

Can a weapon – gun, knife, club, baseball bat, etc. – be responsible for these killings? Can even the availability of a weapon be responsible? Again, look at the definition of responsibility. Nope. The burden of responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

A compilation of data by information Please® Database, © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012 shows there were 12,765 murders in 2012. Of this total, 8,855 or 69.4 percent were committed by someone using a gun. But wait! That’s not all: 1,589 used a knife or sharp object; 518 used a club or blunt object; 767 killed by strangulation, hands, fists, feet, or pushing; 85 burned the victim in an arson; leaving 951 that were killed by poison, explosives, unknown, drowning, asphyxiation, narcotics, other means, and weapons not stated.

Wow! What a list of ways to kill! I am sure someone will be eager to point out that the majority used a gun. But was it the gun’s fault? If no guns had been available, would these 12,765 murders have not been committed? Not likely, since the killers in 3,910 of these instances used a different weapon.

No, it all comes down to responsibility. And that rests solely with the killer. Take the recent tragedy at the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater. James Holmes walked into the theater and shot into the seated crowd, killing 12 people and wounding 70. At his trial, he claimed to be not guilty due to reasons of insanity. In other words, he was not responsible; his mental state was the cause. The judge didn’t buy it, and neither did 12 of his peers in the jury. Holmes now has 12 life terms plus 3,318 years to contemplate the definition of responsibility.

The other day a disgruntled former news reporter shot and killed two former colleagues and wounded a woman they were interviewing while on air. Immediately, the father of one of the victims – the cameraman – vowed to fight for stricter gun control. Well, there you go; it was the gun’s fault, not the gunman. The same call made after every tragedy of this type.

If I drive my car into a tree and total it, it would be pretty hard to blame the car, unless it was defective. I seriously doubt the insurance company would buy that story. Yet, no one has reported a defect in any of the weapons used that could have caused the killings. Oddly, the responsibility is almost always deflected from the shooter to guns or the supposed availability of guns.

Okay, back to my wrecked car scenario. Cars are much easier to own than any gun. If I had to go through more hoops to own one, would that make me a better, more responsible driver? Well, I wouldn’t intentionally drive a car into a tree, but then again, I wouldn’t intentionally shoot up a theater either. I take responsibility for my actions, and others should too.

Unfortunately, the trends of society toward more control these days seem to be contributing to the lack of personal responsibility. It is far too easy to claim that the government should control conditions that cause tragic events, and push the responsibility off on the government.

Regardless of the shooter’s state of mind, sanity, or weapon availability, it is always his or her responsibility. No amount of legislation will ever or can ever relieve the killer of responsibility for his or her actions. 

Democrats v/s Socialists

Well, the cat is slowly slipping out of the bag. Earlier this month Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked – not once but twice on different television programs – to explain the difference between Democrats and Socialists. She quickly diverted the question to an altogether different subject. No, she would not answer the question.

What brought about the question – from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, of all people – was the fact that the other Democrat contender in the Presidential race, Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist.

This deserves more in-depth examination. In 2009, the Socialist Part of America proudly announced there were 70 members of congress belonging to the party. Today, beliefnet.com said:

The 75-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, is closely allied with the Democratic Socialists of America. The Communist Party USA identifies Progressive Caucus members as its “allies in Congress.”

Okay, it is settled, Sanders is a socialist, as apparently are a huge number of members of congress – all Democrats. Just what is a socialist and why should we be wary of them?

Socialism wasn’t invented by Karl Marx. Frenchmen Saint-Simon and Fourier advanced the idea of a socialist society long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels collaborated on this aberrant philosophy. Europeans, in particular, the French experimented with various forms of socialism well before the Lenin brought the Marxist ideals to notoriety.

The Russian revolution came about because of the excesses of the Tsarist monarchy. It was not intended to be a socialist or Marxist revolution. The people simply wanted to be free of the Tsar and his henchmen. What they wound up with was the dictator Lenin and his Bolshevik henchmen. When Lenin died during the formative stages of the Soviet Union, Joe Stalin stepped into his shoes, ruled with an iron fist, and allowed only a single party, the Bolsheviks, to dominate the political scene. The name Bolshevik was changed to Communist but maintained the same Marxist philosophy of socialism.

Socialism isn’t new in America. The Socialist Party of America was founded in 1897 and dissolved in 1972. No fewer than four socialist organizations succeeded the SPA. One of those organizations was the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders, a self-identified socialist.

Is there a difference between socialists and communists? Not much. Communists are Marxist socialists who advocate transition from a capitalist economy to a regulated socialist economy. Communists believe that transition should be achieved through a violent revolution. The Bolsheviks found out the revolution would not accept socialism without the force of a dictator.

Do socialists work for the “working class” aka., the little people. Again, that would be no. It is the big lie. Lenin called the proletariat, “useful idiots.” Workers unions were controlled by Bolsheviks and peasants were forced into collective farming. Individualism was outlawed – except for the elites of the administration. If you like slavery, you will love socialism.

And what of mere socialists? Well, in the ‘60s and ‘70s the American Socialists and Communist party advocated the same transition through revolution. Today these communists/socialists are members of our congress and reign throughout our government. Most are registered Democrats.

It is no coincidence that the recession brought out the socialist call for wealth redistribution. Of course, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The fall of the Soviet Union appeared to eliminate communism, but in actuality, it merely renamed itself – again – to “Progressive” and “Democratic Socialist”.

Is there a difference between socialists and Democrats? Well, Chris, apparently not for many Dems. The question he should have asked is, can a socialist leopard change its spots? Not likely! As the Russians tragically realized, socialism is elitism wrapped in a lie.

The Modern Car Dilemma

My wife’s ten-year-old PT Cruiser is … not well. If it were a person, we would be looking for a good nursing home to place it in.

It’s not like we haven’t maintained it properly. Every 3000 miles it gets a new oil filter and oil change. I replace the brake rotors and pads when they are worn. We always put the best tires on it and keep them properly inflated. It has had two new batteries during its lifetime. It gets regular tune-ups. It’s had a good life.

Lately, it has become… well, incontinent. The garage has a large – and growing – puddle of something oily beneath the poor car. On top of that, the air conditioner quit. I can’t say precisely when it quit, but the wife has been using the 4-60 A/C method most of this summer. What is the 4-60 A/C method? You roll down all four windows and drive 60 miles per hour. It doesn’t help much and leaves her hair looking like that new “just out of bed” messy style. But it’s still better than arriving looking like a wet dishtowel.

It’s been a good car, but yes, the time has come to think about a replacement.

I have never been a fan of used cars especially those only a year or two old. You have to ask, why would someone get rid of a car that soon? Although, those cars more … mature, have usually been around the block more than a time or two, so you might not be gaining much by trading in your old problems for new ones.

No, I like new cars. I like the warranty with a new car, although I have seldom had to use it. I like the feel of a new car. And I like the smell of a new car.

What I don’t like these days is the look of the new cars. One day when the PT Cruiser was in the shop, I rented a new Buick. Wow! A Buick! Nice car. My impression when setting in it for the first time was, huh? Well, I recognized the steering wheel, and brake and accelerator pedals, but everything else was foreign. I may just as well have been sitting at the controls of a 747.

I went to put the key (yes, the Buick did have a key) into the ignition. There was none. The rental guy showed me how to start the car by just putting your foot on the brake and pressing the “start” button. I still don’t know that the key was for. Nothing seemed to use it.

Okay, now that the engine is on, let’s back out. Wait a minute! There is no gearshift lever! Back to the rental guy. Turns out, there is a little knob on the console that controls the transmission.

Now I’m finally out of the lot and on the road. In front of me is a bewildering array of buttons – all with some sort of hieroglyphics – and a couple of computer screens. One screen appears to be showing the car’s speed, and the other is giving me more information than a Sunday newspaper.

I experimented with a few of the buttons and managed to get the A/C and fan to a somewhat comfortable point. I have no idea what most of the buttons did, though, and I’m certain the owner’s manual was the size of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”

I did manage to make it through the day but really didn’t go far. Even so, I still needed to have the same gas reading as when I left, so I pulled into a filling station. Uh, what side is the filler on? Of course, I had a 50 percent chance of guessing right and 100 percent chance of being wrong. So, whip the car around to the other side. Now I am confronted with a filler door that won’t open. Well, back to the buttons. There must be one with something that looks like a filler door that will open the thing. There wasn’t!

I panic! I am cutting it close on time to return the car, and just know they will be charging me for an extra day. Well, forget it. I know they will charge me ten dollars a gallon for what I used, but what-the-hey. I had no way of putting gas in it and didn’t have time to read through “War and Peace” to figure it out.

As it turned out, the PT Cruiser wasn’t done. I still needed a car, so the dealer was kind enough to provide a loaner – yes, I should have asked for one earlier.

When the service adviser brought the loaner around, he appeared in a brand new Chrysler 200. Wow! New car! It was then I noticed the Chrysler looked nearly identical to the Buick I had just returned. Parked next to each other, you could not tell the difference. Then it dawned on me; nearly all cars from all the different manufacturers look the same. Is there a conspiracy here, or did the engineers all go to the same school of design? Every car looks alike! And they all look like pregnant roller skates. There are no lines or distinguishing features, just the same blah in every car.

Call me nostalgic, but I do long for the ‘50s and ‘60s when cars had class, for the days when high-performance meant a mean engine and drive train, not a bigger amp. No Bluetooth, Pandora, or GPS for me. Give me a ’57 Chevy with standard transmission and a big V-8 – American iron with American muscle and class. A car you could be proud to own and drive.

Oh, well… dream on. I guess, I will be stuck with a pregnant roller skate and car payment larger that my mortgage. Maybe I can paint a Confederate flag on it so I can find it in a parking lot.

Drone No-Fly Zone

As two recent wildfires raged in California, the tankers and aircraft needed to fight them sat idle on the ground leaving property and lives at great risk. The North Fire that burned along I-15 in the Cajon Pass came on vehicles on the Interstate so fast that the occupants were lucky to scramble to safety while their vehicles were consumed. That fire took 44 vehicles, 7 homes, and 16 outbuildings. Another home and 4 outbuildings sustained damaged but was not destroyed. Much of this destruction may have been prevented if the airdrops had been allowed to fly.

But why were these badly needed aircraft sitting idle? In a word, safety! Some idiot decided it would be cool to watch the fire from cameras mounted on a drone. Never mind that the drone could present a safety hazard to aircraft as they dropped water and fire retardant on the flames, this jerk just wanted some excitement! Never mind that he or she might be responsible for destroying 44 vehicles and placing the occupants at risk of being burned alive, he or she just wanted some good shots of the fire.

Okay, what is being done to these drone idiots? NADA! That’s right, it’s not against any law to interfere with fire crews, not against the law to fly a drone into a situation that could cause other aircraft to collide, not against the law to be an inconsiderate and dangerous idiot with a drone. So, it happened again with the Lake fire. Once again, fire aircrews were told to stand down because a drone was in the area.

Remotely piloted model aircraft have been around for decades. Hobbyists have enjoyed flying these toys without causing serious incidents. Recently someone mounted a camera on them and called them “drones.” They have taken various shapes, but the most popular seem to be the helicopter type with four or six rotors.

It’s a handy little thing, these drones. Any fool can own one. You can put them almost anywhere, fly them remotely from ever increasing distances, and with those cameras, see things you would never otherwise be able to see – like in the neighbor’s high-rise windows; over the privacy fence at… well, whatever; and through the smoke and flames of a wildfire.

Yep, these things are intrusive, obnoxious, and now dangerous. I am of the opinion that they might also make great shotgun targets when they get low enough. Oh, wait… there is a law against that. That’s right, the FAA takes a dim view of shooting at aircraft – even if the aircraft is unoccupied and buzzing your house. Although I haven’t seen reports of anyone being arrested for shooting at a drone, I did see where a woman was arrested for hitting a drone operator who was harassing her with the drone.

Personally, I believe a little double-ought buckshot from a goose gun would end the problem in a hurry. Drone down… fire crews back in the air, property safe. If they can’t put the idiot drone pilots in jail for endangering or harassing people and property, at least they won’t be flying that drone again.

If you own a drone, take heed. In my neck of the woods, we shoot unidentified flying objects. With my bifocals, drones could easily be mistaken for a large bird or some strange locust.

The Trump Card

With over 500 days to election 2016, Donald Trump leads the pack in the Republican camp. Well, why not. He’s rich; he’s a celebrity; he’s rich; he’s entertaining; he’s rich; he’s outspoken; he’s rich; he gets a lot of free air-time; and oh, by the way, he’s rich… very rich.

He also has the ire of the Republican Party, which only tends to elevate him in the eyes of Republican voters.  Make no mistake about it, though; Donald Trump is a loose cannon.

Can he win the Party nomination? Maybe. Can he win the White House? Well, the odds are probably somewhere like those of me being struck by lightning – twice – then winning the Power Ball Lottery and California’s Mega Millions on the same day. It could happen!

Let's take a look at this 69-year-old billionaire. He lives in Queens, New York, was married three times, has five children, holds a Bachelors Degree from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania after transferring there from Fordham University in the Bronx. Trump finished High School at the New York Military Academy (NYMA), after being dismissed from the Kew-Forest School in Forest Hills, Queens for having “behavior problems.”

Trump’s fortune got its start when his father brought him into the family real estate business that focused on middle-class rental housing in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. It wasn’t long before he changed the company name from Elizabeth Trump and Son to The Trump Organization.

Lest anyone might think Trump was handed his fortune, they would be wrong. The man works hard for the money he has made and takes some very big risks. “The Donald” has created a great number of very successful enterprises, from the Trump Towers to the Taj Mahal Casino (which nearly brought him to bankruptcy), with a number of high-rise developments having the name Trump in them along the way. His net worth, depending on the source, might be from 1.8 billion to 10 billion dollars. The guy is rich… filthy rich!

Trump’s party history runs the range of Republican (Before 1999; 2009–11; 2012–present), Reform Party (1999–2001), Democratic (2001–09), and Independent (2011–12).

There can be no doubt that Donald Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than Texas and a very bad haircut. On the other hand, he is probably one of the most recognizable people in America, if not the world. He is also one of the most outspoken. His tirade on Mexican illegal immigrants and denunciation of heroism of Senator John McCain has given him great traction among voters. Why, because he is not just another mealy-mouthed politician. In fact, he has proven that he has not a drop of politician blood in his veins.

Is he dangerous? Very! In 1992, another billionaire businessman with strong libertarian tendencies, Ross Perot, cost a very good Republican candidate, President George H.W. Bush reelection and essentially bought Bill Clinton the office. Trump has already hinted that he might run an independent campaign if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination. If this happens it will be a Clinton redux.

Like Perot, Trump is telling many conservatives what they long to hear – and what the other candidates are too timid to voice. His schoolyard invectives against other candidates are entertaining, and seem to hit a chord with many voters simply because Trump is calling the politicians out in violation of the Republican 11^th commandment (thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans).

If you scan back to Trump’s political history, you will find he was registered in the Reform Party from 1999 to 2001 – the same Reform Party created by Ross Perot. Coincidence?

Is Donald Trump merely a celebrity buffoon? If so, he is a very cagy buffoon, one that might just trump the Republicans with an undeserving loss.