Since Nov 30, 2004
Question from FReeper:
"I admit that I dont know how most viruses work so I have a question. Is the severity of your illness determined by how much of the virus you are exposed to or can just a brush with it send you into full blown sickness? For instance, if you touch a barely contaminated surface, say with one finger, that has a tiny bit of virus on it are your risks as great as if you touched a surface that somebody had full on sneezed on and covered with the virus? Just trying to learn. I know how to lessen your chances (hand washing, etc.) but dont fully understand how it works."
Here's my (non-professional) take:
1) Think in terms of 'virons', which are the little-pecker flu particles. They are tiny - you can fit one million of them in an average sized human cell (which is still too small to see).
2) The virons are so numerous they we all get them inside of us, by breathing, or other means. We all have gotten some virons from Coronavirus, as they simply cannot be avoided if one breathes the air on this planet.
3) When a viron makes it inside the body, it attaches to a cell and immediately tries to replicate.
4) But, almost immediately, our immune system identifies it, and begins a vicious, multi-pronged assault on its host cell, with the goal of destroying the cell and thereby preventing the viron from replicating, and then tearing apart the viron.
5) In the vast majority of cases, our immune system destroys that viron before it gets to replicate. If the response is a bit too slow, the viron may replicate, thereby requiring additional immune system resources.
6) Still, in the vast majority of cases, the end result is the same - the virons, whether they replicate a bit or not, are destroyed. Coronavirus is no different than other viruses in that regard.
7) However, if your intake of virons is too fast, in a given amount of time, then the replication of the virons (inside your body) exceeds the capacity of the immune system, and you're infected. At that point your body kicks into a higher gear and you may have the symptoms, maybe bad symptoms, maybe death.
8) So how do you get the virons? Lots of ways, but the worst way for Coronavirus is by breathing them in, as they do target the lungs for their replication. You probably can get them other ways, by touching surfaces with virons, maybe by touching US Mail with virons on it, but then the virons still have to figure out a way into your body, and then into your lungs.
9) But you still need a lot of virons. A door knob that someone breathed on my wind up transferring 100 virons into your body - but if you need a million virons to get infected, you're not going to get sick from that doorknob (now, if an infected person sneezes on that door knob, then all bets are off). But get in an Uber for 20 minutes with a badly infected carrier and he's loading up the air virons...and that's not good, as you can easily reach the point of where the virons are replicating beyond the immune system's capability to destroy them.
10) So, for the full-up protective gear for a doctor or nurse in a hospital, while it may block 99% of the virons, the 1% remaining could still easily be enough to infect them, due to the very high starting concentration in that environment...which is why so many get sick.
11) Wear a typical mask in a less-intense environment, say a Costco, but with a decent number of infected people, but also with a lot more air volume, the 97% blocked by the cheaper mask could easily make the difference.
12) Obviously, the ability to fight off virons will be different for every person and probably will vary significantly for a single person, due to different conditions. That's why mom told you to wear a jacket when it's cold - you'll still breathe the same number of virons, but your tolerance level is higher with your body not having to deal with a crappy environment at the same time.
13) The one other question you had, which is whether a strong exposure is worse to a low-level exposure - assuming that both are still above your tolerance level. I think that's the case, based on the following theory: It could be that, once you're infected, your body's immune system sends out a notice (i.e., hormone) that tells ALL of your cells that a big battle is about to be waged, so the body toughs-up and goes into some kind of self-protection mode during the fight, and/or gets ready for reduced services during that fight, such as much food/oxygen going to healthy cells (think of it as stocking up when you know a storm is coming). But getting into that mode takes a certain amount of time, and if you're hit by a really high concentration of virons, the virus is all over the place before you're body is toughened-up...so it's not as ready as it could be, so it succumbs easier. Just a theory, but I haven't seen anything else.
14) One other note - in countries like Taiwan that know how to fight Coronavirus, they check temperatures of everyone, every time they enter a business (along with ratting them out if they are sick). They know they won't catch carriers that do not yet have a fever, but I suspect those who do have a fever are spewing out far more virons than non-fever carriers, so if you stop those with a fever, you've cut 90 to 99% of the virons for a given environment - and then add masks (for all people) and you can pretty much assure that no one picks it up in the community...which has been the case in those countries. Social distancing also has the same effect as masks, reducing the concentration of virons being breathed by others, if a person is a carrier. If you're outdoors and 6 feet away from a carrier - assuming that the carrier isn't sneezing on you, you're safe, easily.
15) So, a multi-faceted approach to this virus would be the following:
a) Identify carriers with symptoms and get them off the streets (via massive temperature checking)
b) Trace and quarantine close contacts with identified carriers
c) Require the use of masks for all people in public
d) Put in place social distancing to avoid unnecessary risks due to high concentrations of people
They're also really into washing hands and sanitizing, but I'm not sure that's a big factor for Coronavirus.
Size Comparison of Small Things:
Grain of Sand: 1.0e-03 meters (1 mm, typ)
Human Egg Cell: 130.0e-06 meters, diameter
Width of Human Hair: 100.0e-06 meters
Average Human Cell: 12.0e-06 meters, diameter
Head of Human Sperm: 4.3e-06 meters (little guy)
Ave. Bacteria Cell: 1.2e-06 meters, diameter
Average Viron Size: 125.0e-09 meters, diameter
Hydrogen Atom Size: 120.0e-12 meters (tiny guy)
Proton Particle Size: 1.2e-15 meters (really tiny guy)
From the above:
A viron is 1/100 the diameter of the average human cell, and thus is 1 millionth of the volume - 1,000,000 virons can fit in an average human cell
Likewise, 500,000 human cells can fit in a grain of sand. So, 500 Billion virons could fit into a grain of sand - they are tiny!
Here is an article that came out March 30th, supporting what I surmised above:
This is a good article discussing viral load and gets down to the viron level.
KETO, LOW CARB, and DIABETES
If the last 2.4 million years was turned into 24 hours of human existence...
We have eaten meat for the last 24 hours
We have eaten wheat/grains for the last 6 minutes
We have eaten processed food for the last 4 seconds
I think its easy to see where the real problem is.
(Aug 7, 2019) We are now entering the MOST EPIC BATTLE in history regarding what is healthy food, and what is not healthy.
And so to start. Consider these three factoids from the recent past. This is all OFFICIAL RELEASES from CREDIBLE SOURCES (as in the US Government, or leading health organizations):
1) Eggs, including yolks, are no longer unhealthy to eat. The specific advice to minimize consumption of eggs is gone, completely. This is per the US Government and the bad-boy listing of eggs seems to have evaporated in 2005.
2) The REQUIREMENT to limit saturated fats (fats from red meat, including steak, butter, etc.) to no more than 10% of calories has been very quietly eliminated and instead is now only a recommendation. This was done as a FOOTNOTE in the 2015 US Government Dietary Guidelines (page 15 of 144 pages). In the footnote it is noted that if people really do limit saturated fats down to 10%, they will be replaced by something, which is likely worse. This type of footnote DOES NOT EXIST in prior versions of this document. The significance of this cannot be understated, it was not an accident that they made the change and expect it to soon be amplified and brought further forward.
3) The American Diabetes Association, early this year (2019), stated that 'some people' are known to have positive effects on their diabetic condition by minimizing or effectively eliminating Carbohydrates, from their diets. This is HUGE, as I will explain later.
Having listed the above from 'credible sources', on this site, Free Republic, there are many people (at least half a dozen, probably many more) who have had incredibly good results by going off carbs (as in greatly reducing or eliminating Insulin, and even getting off all diabetic drugs). These are America-loving people, many retired, and I suspect virtually no one with anything to gain by falsely claiming these results. Sure, we don't know the real names or histories of these people here, but unless someone can convince me they have a motivation to flat-out lie, I believe them, even more than I believe my own siblings in this area.
What makes this an 'epic battle' are the entrenched interests. You have the obvious ones, including Big Pharma (selling diabetes drugs to millions of people), Big Carb (think Frosted Flakes, for starters, but as someone explained here, go to the front of supermarket and then go to the back - everything in between is Big Carb), but also the much less obvious ones (such Big Food spending billions developing good-tasting carb-loaded fake hamburger patties). These people/orgs will NOT go down without a huge fight, obviously. There are millions of people with jobs at risk, and many, many, people with multi-million dollar lifestyles at risk. They will fight, and fight to the death (maybe, actually). Think cigarettes, and if you can remember, about 30 years ago, the execs were all seated next to each other, in front of a Congressional Committee and asked if cigarette smoking causes cancer. To a person, they said NO (almost certainly due to their legal advice). It was game over for them...they didn't have a chance either way.
Not mentioned above is what may end up being the Biggest Player of all - THE LEFT. These are the people who want to get us off meat (think AOC), because they're convinced that the only way to clean up the planet is to stop people from eating meat. But look again at my 'official' examples. Eggs are fine, eating red meat, fat included, is fine, and eliminating carbs, which RULES OUT going off meat, is not only good, but actually healthy. There literally is no room for compromise. The battle lines are drawn, and one side will prevail, at the expense of the other side.
So now you have the Order of Battle drawn out. One side wants to simply live out our lives as healthy and as long as possible, the other side wants to take it all away. Your local Senator my be a RINO, and you may well want to send a message, but ask yourself who is more likely to be on your side here, a RINO, or someone owned by AOC? I only say this because in 10 years Supermarkets will have one or the other, but not both. You will either have HEALTHY FOOD (red meat, etc.), or food that will kill you (Carbs, even if packaged as healthy). You decide which side you're on.
So now to history. Two things of note happened around 1961 (give or take a few years): (1) Dr. Ancel Keyes determined from a now largely discredited study that eating Saturated Fats made one both fat and sick, prone to heart disease and other ailments. (2) Dr. Roselyn Yalow (a friend of my mom's, by the way), along with Dr. Berson (her partner) developed a method to measure concentrations of hormones, particularly Insulin, in human blood - something she won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for, in 1977 (Insulin was well known by then and even being used to treat diabetes, but measuring it in human blood, along with what happened to the concentration response based on types of food eaten, was not possible, until then). This was so ground-breaking, that they had to come up with new units of measurements for her (these concentrations are that super-low). Dr. Yalow died in 2011, but the work she did would lead to the recent and now accelerating efforts of discrediting of Dr. Keys, who was simply an asshole, viciously resisting any peer criticism while he was alive.
Here is a historical write-up that I just came across today. Thankfully Keys is dead, but reversing what he ingrained into the medical community, now protected by the hard-left (animal rights types and now climate change types) is like turning an ocean-liner. It will be slow and we simply have to keep at it, until the truth prevails.
The major takeaway from the above is the following quote: "Unfortunately, when faced with potential reason to change our practice behavior, most doctors behave like herd animals in that we instinctively follow the recommendation of authorities in order to avoid slaughter by predatory lawyers."
Always remember the above - if you're asked why you should be believed in lieu of your brother's personal doctor - he has to ALWAYS worry about the next lawsuit, you don't. You can tell the truth and be safe, he can't.
So here we are. Throughout my life time, and I'm sure yours, we were told that Diabetes is a 'condition' that you 'manage' into old age, until it kills you, or makes you want to be dead. There is NO OTHER OPTION - if you want near-normal (i.e., 100) blood sugar, you need to eat what you're told (i.e., lots of 'good carbs', not much in fats), take your meds, and then Insulin. If you're lucky, heart disease or stroke will take you out before you go blind or the amputations begin. Again, there was simply NO OTHER OPTION, you were condemned to this outcome, you just had bad luck. And the 'bad luck', in roughly 100 years accelerated from 0.1% of Americans to 30% of Americans (soon). Just the breaks, I guess.
(Aug 7, 2019) What follows below is stuff I had posted in the past. I just leave it here, feel free to read, but note the dates, it was years ago.
(July 5, 2016) Note to Cruz Supporters: We hear you. Many of us, me included, were Cruz supporters before Trump. Just about everyone of us Trump supporters at least liked and respected Cruz, before Trump ran. Just after Trump announced he (Trump) was polling at 1%. Everyone here simply felt that we already had good candidates and that Trump, the clown that he is, would make our party look like a circus, and hurt us in November. We felt that border security, or biggest issue, would be addressed, because we kept being promised just that, and this time we had at least some candidates that weren't from "the club".
But then the reactions started coming in. We understood and expected the Democrats and the media to attack any candidate that we run - we get it, we could run Mother Teresa and by November, she'd be right there with Hitler, once the Dems and the media got through with her. But Trump said a few things that have meaning to us, such as the need for a wall. Of the 17 Republican candidates, and the 16 of them said he was insane (or something close), and one candidate, Cruz, said he didn't see anything wrong with the idea - but still had trouble understanding just how important immigration is as an issue to Republicans. Yes, a capital gains tax cut would be nice. Yes, ending ethanol subsidies would be nice. Yes, reforming Obamacare would be nice. But unless illegal immigration were stopped cold, and legal immigration seriously reformed, none of those issues mattered to us, because we would simply be outvoted, for generations - as California Republicans learned the hard way, to this day. So that was issue one with the rest of the pack, they just didn't get it on immigration - Cruz came closest, but still wasn't there. Others were simply out to lunch. That was Issue One with Cruz (and the others) - immigration to Cruz was 'just another issue', while immigration to the rest of the Republican candidates was an issue that they needed to 'educate their supporters' of the need to legalize tens of millions of new Democrats.
(2)Issue Two: We needed someone that could win in November, and the only way that a Republican can win in November is by drawing in millions of otherwise Democrat votes, as Reagan did in a huge way, and Bush Jr. did in a smaller way. Cruz had done nothing at all to try to reach those people. His entire campaign in 2015 and early 2016 centered on winning the Evangelical vote - so it was prayer breakfasts and similar virtually every day. The baggage that would give him in November didn't seem to be a concern - I guess he figured he could explain it away and then make his push to pick up Democrats that don't mind be preached at (or at least felt that Cruz would do that). But we figured differently - we knew that once the Republican candidate was labeled as a right-wing crusader, it was over for him, at least for president. Cruz did not have the media command or the money to do anything to stop the Dems there, it would have been a wipe out in November. Trump, on the other hand, was aiming his campaign at the biggest pool of available voters that exist - which is disenfranchised whites. These are people that, by all measures, should be voting Republican, as they are totally despised by the Democrats who are putting all of their efforts into getting the votes of minorities and other special interests. But this huge group of people are also not really liked by Republicans either. They are considered uncultured and backwards by top Republicans. Give them their red meat at election time, to get our share of their votes, and then simply forget about them. For example, after the 2012 election, Frank Luntz, Republican pollster didn't even mention that failing to motivate white voters played a huge part in Romney's defeat. Nope, he SPIT IN THE FACE of white voter by saying Republicans needed to support Amnesty to get more Hispanics to vote for them, as Hispanics are the fastest growing group of voters. Not a word about how this would affect the morale of white voters, who still make up at least 80% of Republican votes...nope, I guess the plan was to throw them some red meat yet again in the next cycle, after flooding the country with new, Democrat voters. This is a perfect formula for losing...tell your base to go to hell, while you try to pander to a new group.
(3) Issue Three: Trump was a non-politician and brutal. It was obvious that he was hurting the feelings of many other Republicans with his comments, but we also knew that nothing at all was off-limits to him when it came to attacking his opponents. We have been demanding that for decades, and now we found something that would finally do it. Yes, he was doing it to other Republicans, but we knew he could and would do it to Hillary or whoever the Democrats ran. The rest of the Republican Party - they were much more worried about hurting their share of the woman's vote, as they figured that every woman voter identified with Hillary, I guess. The Dems figured out the formula in 2008 - run a black radical and the fact that he's black means that any attack is simply racism. Worked like a charm against McCain, and worked great on Romney. In 2016, run a woman, and any attack will be labeled as anti-woman. Worked on 16 of 17 candidates, didn't work on Trump. We saw that. We also saw that Cruz and the rest would end up like Lazio did, when he 'invaded Hillary's space' during a debate that he ultimately lost to her for US Senate...primarily for that reason. He tried to apologize he way out, but no luck, of course.
That's probably enough for now...the bottom line is that 15 of the 17 Republican candidates were essentially clones of each other, and offered nothing of substance. Cruz was certainly better than the 15, but still limited for a number of reasons, the first one being that he ultimately needed money from the donor bunch, so there was only so far he could go. Furthermore, Cruz felt the only way he could win the nomination was to go far-right. While he may have been right, it was a sure defeat in November. But Trump had money and did not seem to care what the donors or anyone else in the party said. And Trump was willing to do something no Republican ever thought necessary, or no Republican was ever allowed to do, which was to court the White Vote...so that is why he's the candidate.
One thing that will never know is where Cruz would be today if he had actually supported Trump, or at least hadn't gone off the rails in opposing Trump. Many of us here saw a Trump/Cruz ticket as a dream team. But we'll never know why Cruz had such a big problem with being VP, after all, he's only in his mid-40s. All he needed to do was help Trump and automatically be next in line for the top job. But then, perhaps, our choice of moving away from Cruz was correct, as Cruz has not looked good in the past few months...so maybe he was never presidential material to begin with. Who knows, but time will tell.
(Dec 6, 2015) Now it is December, and Trump continues to defy (nearly) all predictions and is starting to pull away. Carly had a brief run-up, but then people started seeing her face, and now her days are over. Carson had a more sustained run-up, but people finally saw past his skin color and realized that he wasn't even close to being ready for the top job, not to mention some odd things in his past. Jeb is his usual pathetic self and is running at a level that pretty much matches that, the low single digits. Rubio is still in the running, but seems to have difficulty getting above 15%...and with Jeb so low, Rubio's upper limit is likely only 20%, should Jeb and a few others leave (maybe 25% in a two-man race).
So as the GOPe switches to panic mode, with Rubio unable to move forward and all of the other GOPe 'controllable' candidates now pretty much gone (they are trying to make a play with Christie in New Hampshire, but at best it will be a on-off...the rest of the country laughs at him and looks at him as an empty blowhard).
But the big news in the 'inside baseball' world is this: Just yesterday a gentleman from Florida named Mike Fernandez announced that he will vote for Hillary over Trump. What's important here is that Mr. Fernandez is a billionaire and a TOP GOP DONOR, having given millions this election cycle (and probably others) and probably all to Republicans (I didn't bother researching this twit). Thankfully Trump doesn't need a dime from him. But EVERY other Republican who runs for President, Cruz included, is dependent on him and people like him - who simply will not cut a check for any Republican who doesn't play by THEIR RULES. So now, thanks to Trump, we know why 300,000 people can be on this site, the country supports border control by a 2/3's majority (Dems included), and the country supports many other conservatives values, but we always seem to get PATHETIC candidates. It is because of Big Money, the GOPe. They are now showing that faced with the choice between a flaming liberal Democrat, or a conservative Republican, they'll take the Democrat (or, at a minimum, not support the Republican). They gave Trump a lot a grief regarding a 'loyalty test' - how about a test for this bunch?
(July 3, 2015) And now life gets interesting as Donald Trump enters the race and makes no bones about Illegals. He gets killed in the media and by big business (Macy's, Serta, and likely many others)...the same types of operations all too willing to step on conservative values when it comes to just about every other social issue. But he connects, because he, more than anyone, has tapped into the WHITE VOTE...and he may well unify it. Should that be the case, the election is already over...he will not lose. Read on to see how it works.
In Texas, non-Hispanic whites now make up 45% of the population. We are ahead of the country in the demographic decline of whites, yet Republicans just TROUNCED the Democrats here. Keep that in mind as you continue reading.
TED CRUZ UPDATE (posted on March 23, 2015, same day Cruz announces)
Ted Cruz is maybe the only candidate that can unify the white vote - and that is what is now needed to win elections. Like it or not, the Democrats understand the Republican electorate and American electorate much better than the Republicans understand it. They understand that IT IS CRITICAL that the Republicans never run a candidate that gives white voters something to vote for, because if they do, they may see white voters vote as a block (see just below). Run a McCain/Romney and the white vote splits about 55/45 Republican. Maybe 40 or 50 years ago that was enough to win the White House, but not anymore, not even close, as 2008/2012 showed. But if the white vote splits 65/35, then Republicans do win as they are still the main voting block in this country (roughly 70% of the vote). Again, the Dems know this. The Republican advisers also know this, but since most are gay, they don't communicate that to the candidates.
Read below to see what happened in Texas, and throughout the South, in 2014, and keep in mind we were SUPPOSED TO LOSE in Texas last year.
THE WHITE VOTE (posted as part of an article on Feb. 28, 2015, titled: "Opposition to immigration reform is a winning strategy for Republicans")
Here in Texas, the Democrats thought that they had the PERFECT TICKET in 2014. They had a woman running for Governor, and a Hispanic running for Lt. Governor. Furthermore the Republicans had an EXTREMIST ticket running for Governor and Lt. Governor (and further down the ticket). The Governor candidate was Gregg Abbott, since he didn't support gay marriage, he was considered an EXTREMIST. The Lt. Governor candidate was Dan Patrick, who, even by Tea Party standards was VERY CONSERVATIVE. For example, he called the situation on our southern border an INVASION and demanded that no concessions or goodies be given to Illegals in Texas, ever. He wants them to go home, or be sent home. He never ran away from those positions even when attacked by his Hispanic opponent in the debates, and even after the Republican advisers (most of them gay, by the way) told him that he would GET CLOBBERED as Hispanics would not want anything to do with him.
The Democrats had tens of millions of dollars coming in from outside (Battleground Texas was the big national operation) - the Democrats were sure that they finally had a WINNING STRATEGY. The plan was this: The whites would split their vote the usual 55/45 Republican (maybe 60/40, at worst). The blacks, of course, would vote 90/10 Democrat, and the Hispanics would vote 75/25 Democrat. Considering that Whites are barely over 50% of the population now, at the very worst, the election would be close, even if the Republicans squeaked through.
So what happened? The blacks, of course, came through. But the whites were a different story. They voted 75/25 REPUBLICAN. They LIKED THE MESSAGE and went out and voted that way, and in BIG NUMBERS. Surprisingly (or maybe not), the HISPANICS also liked the Republican message (or at least were sickened by the Democrats, particularly on gay marriage, guns, and some other left-wing issues), and per the NBC News Exit Poll, they voted 55/45 Democrat (and those numbers include Dan Patrick). In other words, HISPANICS wound up nearly splitting their vote, and Democrats were at the losing end of a DELUGE of white voters, voting Republican, almost as a block. There simply was not enough blacks to help the Democrats.
So, for an election that the Democrats were convinced was WINNABLE, or certainly competitive, the Republicans WON BY 20 POINTS - in EVERY STATEWIDE RACE. I'll repeat that: The Republicans WON BY 20 POINTS and did not LIFT A FINGER to support liberal causes.
Take those results with white voters to Upper Midwest and Pennsylvania and the election math CHANGES RADICALLY - and 2016 becomes very winnable for our side.
But first, the Republicans in DC have to FIGURE THIS OUT and stop listening to their 5th-column 'advisers' (most of them gay, by the way) - and start listening to THEIR VOTERS.
By the way, it is important to BE PREPARED. The Democrats will call it race-baiting, divisiveness, and use every other ugly term in the book to try to stop up. But we have NO CHOICE if we want to win. Just like Bibi in Israel, we will have to do what it takes to win. It is now the whites under attack by the Democrats and therefore WE HAVE THE RIGHT to unify...regardless of what they say about it. It does the country NO GOOD if we run another McCain who proudly holds his head up after being defeated by Obama and more or less says that "I may have lost, but I did so in an inclusive way"...while Obama laughs his way to the White House and packing the courts.
[A few caveats: The Hispanic vote in California and New York City and probably most of the Northeast is very radicalized - getting numbers above 30% will be next to impossible, so it's not even worth the effort. But there are many millions more Hispanics in otherwise competitive states - get them to split their vote, while the whites vote as a block for Republicans, and it's game over for the Dems. Likewise the white vote will be hard to win in those (liberal) states, but they may well be reachable...they do sometimes elect Republicans at the state level, like the governors of Maine and Maryland. The Democrats have pushed so far to the left that whites are now block-voting Republican in many states...this is how we win.]
Here are a few exit polls from 2014. It's worth noting that Cruz also got about 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Scroll down a bit on each page and you'll see where the Hispanic vote is tabulated.
ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL (Kool-Aid); Sept. 7, 2014
(note, this was a comment dealing with a vote in England about whether to join the EU. A reporter found he that his newspaper would not publish his article until after the vote, as it would have hurt the pro-EU side.)
"Months of brainwashing were cancelled out by this sharp personal experience of the Yes campaigns instinctive and necessary dishonesty. If it didnt lie about its real aims, it would never get any support. The whole thing was rigged from the start (as Mr Camerons would be)."
This is what scared the crap out of me with Ross Perot's plan for an electronic Town Hall (where the people, or "the volunteers", as he called them, would directly vote on issues) - the fact that people who live REAL LIVES don't have the time (and often the capability) to filter through the propaganda. So whoever controls what the people are spoon fed, and the wording of the questions, then controls the outcome of votes.
Example Question for the masses: "Should people who are in the United States without proper documentation be: (A) deported to a country that has one of the highest crime rates in the world, where they face certain death; or (B) pay a fine, be allowed to stay in the United States, learn English, contribute to society, pay back taxes, and, after meeting all of the preceding, be allowed to become US citizens? Please choose (A) or (B).
Slightly exaggerated, but not that much. A few things worth noting for the above: 1) Even in Honduras, with the highest murder rate in the world, the vast majority of people live there live in peace. 2) What is the definition of "Learn English"? Does that mean learn to read some English words at a 2nd grade level, or be able to converse comfortably in English? Who gets to decide that? 3) How much is the fine? Does everyone pay it, or are their hardship exceptions? And note that nearly everyone from Central America will be a hardship exception. Also, will federally-funded groups like ACORN be allowed to step-in and pay the fines for these people, using federal money. 4) Who calculates "back taxes". Back taxes are easy for the IRS to calculate if the employer is properly informing the IRS of your wages (i.e., 1099 and W4 forms, etc.), but how does one calculate back taxes for someone that has been paid under the table...maybe take their word for it? 5) How long until these people become citizens, and what happens to the ones that choose not to become citizens? Do they still get to stay here and have kids (can't send them back, after all)? Do their kids become citizens, even if not born here?
Other than the "certain death" comment, the above "Electronic Town Question" is almost identical to a polling question that seemed to come out of NOWHERE 3 hours after Eric Cantor (top Amnesty pusher in the Republican Party) was defeated in his primary. And guess what, the majority of people answered exactly as the pollsters had hoped, which was Answer B.
So you say, well, we have a First Amendment, so the debate will open and people can argue back. Well, not in England in 1974, per this article - the media was 100% on one side and would not allow the other side to get its word out. I suspect that England also has "Campaign Finance Laws" to permit "fairness", but actually intended to silence all but the media. Sure, you can stand in your front yard and scream your side of the argument until you're blue in the face, but good luck competing against media outlets that reach 200 million people in this country.
ROTHERDAM CHILD RAPES (comment to article, Aug, 2014)
This reminds me of the early-generation airbags in cars.
The airbags were of a very simple design. If a cars sensors met the criteria to trigger a detonation, they blasted and they blasted with FULL FORCE, and were not about to let anything, like a childs head get in the way (they decapitated hundreds of children...try getting over that as a parent who gets into a minor fender-bender). The children lucky enough to keep their heads on their shoulders still got blasted from the explosions, as well as the adults.
So airbags were killing (and maiming) the people they were meant to protect, in easily-survivable accidents. Did you see much on the news...not much, just some advice about putting junior in the back seat (so he could fry if you forgot about him when going to work, but thats another story) and staying as far back from the steering wheel as possible (LOL...I wonder why).
The PROBLEM was that public support for airbags could get COMPROMISED if the word got out about what they were doing. So the government, the media, and the auto manufacturers simply teamed up to keep things as quiet as possible, while working to improve them. They eventually did, after at least a decade...now their blasts consider whos in the car and the conditions of the accidents (i.e., stronger blasts for stronger accidents).
So here you have a similar BIG PROBLEM in England. The government and the media want to REPOPULATE the country as quickly as possible, so that Britain never sees its glory days again. The problem is that the vast majority of Brits dont want to do that...but will ignore it, if the new arrivals keep to themselves and out of sight.
But the new arrivals arent the nicest people - so you have to KEEP THINGS QUIET while the project continues, at least until a critical mass is reached. Otherwise, legitimate opposition, such as UKIP would have developed MUCH EARLIER, possibly in time to end the project in time. So the abuse was intentionally ignored.
I suspect, now, that they have reached the level required with their minority population to not have to worry about maintaining the flow of new arrivals, and that in a generation or two, Britain will be successfully repopulated.
HISPANICS AND IMMIGRATION
"Despite that the aforementioned Univision poll showed that 58 percent of Latino Americans want border security to be settled before passing any form of comprehensive immigration reform, liberal-Progressives have argued with some success that the Republican Party, whose policies more closely mirror the feelings of Latinos, is somehow anti-Hispanic. "
This is the CRITICAL QUOTE, and is where Hispanics and Republicans agree, while DEMOCRATS are in their own world with Open Borders - and that is because they want to repopulate this country as quickly as possible, so as to replace the idiot JFK/FDR/union types that keep dying off.
The bottom line is that Hispanics in this country DO NOT WANT OPEN BORDERS, and that is because they understand, better than just about anyone, exactly who is down there, and they prefer they stay down there. The problem is that the Republicans keep trusting their "Advisers" (most of whom are gay, by the way) and actually believe you need open borders to get the Hispanic vote.
Here is the BOTTOM LINE for Hispanics in this country, based on reading a lot of polling data:
1) They want SECURE BORDERS, for the reason mentioned above 2) They like legal immigration, so that family can move here 3) They like Amnesty, so that family here can live legally 4) They don't like deportations or round-ups of illegals (again, because that may include family), and they also feel like second class citizens if they need to carry papers 5) They do want the DREAM ACT
So 1 out of 5 we match them on, but a VERY IMPORTANT one - they want their kids and their neighborhoods to be safe and they know that can't happen with Open Borders. We need to pick up on that and not even discuss the rest until and unless the border is secure (and the rest don't mean anything, anyway, unless the border is secure). That will pretty much eliminate any short-term advantage the Democrats got with Hispanics by pushing Amnesty.
IMMIGRATION AND AMNESTY (a while ago)
The ONLY rational immigration reform is to first make it clear that ANYONE in this country illegally, will stay illegal. Then you get rid of the goodies - welfare, education, etc. Then you deal with employers and punish the crap out of them.
At that point the illegals don't have much reason to stick around (and the economy in Mexico, at least, is doing quite well) - most should go home. For the ones that do stick around, you deport them as you come across them. Go in to pay a parking ticket - you're deported (if caught).
Then you have a guest worker program. You bring in whatever amount of guest workers make sense. You require they apply in their HOME COUNTRIES and ONLY they, not their families come here. Their passes are good for 3 years. Prior illegal status in the US is not considered in any way. Then, after 3 years, they go home and can apply again (and if they behaved, they get moved forward in line). If they sneak their family into the US for a visit, or to stay, then they are deported and never allowed in this country. If they behave well, after some period of time as guest worker, maybe 12 years, they can apply to bring in their families and get a green card.
We do need guest workers, since American high school graduates are basically lazy bums and are often functional illiterates, thanks to their parents actually believe public schools exist to educate their kids.
A second posting from 4/5/2014 on the topic
"Cruz is willing to consider legal status for illegals but only when conservatives are in power."
You seem to COMPLETELY write-off the demographic effect of this. Like it or not, this country is about 50/50 Dem/Republican. Throw in 30,000,000 people from the Third world, WHO WILL HAVE KIDS, and the country becomes 60/40 Democrat, with NO HOPE of having any meaningful opposition.
That means the following:
1) The Supreme Court becomes a RUBBER STAMP for the Democrats. The Second Amendment is history. And that means people like me, in Texas, will have to turn in our guns.
2) The country basically becomes a BASKET CASE, just like Venezuela is now - that country has the LARGEST OIL RESERVES in the world and they are about to start food rationing.
3) The ability to speak freely in opposition to the government simply ENDS, just as is the case in much of Europe, particularly Scandinavia. Like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment means whatever the Democrats want it to mean, since they control the Courts and the government.
4) Then things get really bad, as in energy and food shortages, Mexican-style gangs kidnapping and torturing unarmed Americans, and then currency collapse. Not to mention not having a military anymore.
5) Then maybe after all that, some of the immigrants get fed up with the Democrats, and try to oppose them. Maybe they can provide a credible opposition - but it doesn't really matter much, we will be THIRD WORLD, at best. And the voting systems will likely be even more rigged than they are now.
All of the above will be completed in about 2 generations - we'll be ok, but our kids will suffer when they're old, and our grandkids will suffer through it for much of their lives.
That seems to be the future that TED CRUZ WANTS for this country, if I'm understanding his words correctly (and, actually, this is the first time I've heard those words). Talking about DEMOGRAPHICS is not pretty, but it is the ONLY THING that is separating us from becoming like Latin America. If we choose to go that path...there will be NO OTHER OUTCOME. Argentina was a FIRST WORLD country early in the 20th century, before their demographics overwhelmed them...and they continue to sink even further.
Also keep in mind that the Democrats still have to actually win elections now, as the country is still 50/50 - they CANNOT do anything close to what they want to do - not even close. Read THEIR MATERIALS, read their dreams and goals for this country, when they don't think you're looking, go to their "teach-ins" - then you will understand what they have in store for us. Once the Dems don't have to worry about elections, dealing with the Courts, having a Republican House - they WILL take that path, as people of that mindset have done in EVERY COUNTRY when they achieve undisputed power. They have no choice but to oppress, and oppress FIERCELY, as people would otherwise not tolerate the deplorable conditions that this country will become.
So, I'm against Ted Cruz's plan - but I LOVE him otherwise.
6:25 PM 8/12/2011
Given all of the excitement for Governor Perry, I jotted down a few things last night. While people who oppose me will call them "taking points" they are no different than what his supporters use to defend him (which is what they have to do most of the time), and so it is fair game to bring up these topics. I'll be busy most of this weekend, but will try to respond when I get some free time. So here it goes:
Much as Mike Huckabee initially got lots of support when he threw his hat in, in 2008, Rick Perry is also getting lots of support now. Both candidates were considered successful governors of very conservative states and thus assumed to be trustworthy conservatives. However, as with Bush-43, both candidates have some serious baggage.
Huckabee, for example, was letting felons loose by the hundreds, one of which killed a bunch of cops minding their own business in a diner in Washington State (that alone may have sunk him this year, we'll never know). It was a horrible policy, with police chiefs, prosecutors, and others begging him to keep these guys locked up. But Huckabee figured he knew more than those people, so if he heard the right words from the criminal, all was forgiven. Huckabee also bought into the Global Warming charade, specifically buying into the liberal-religious view that God requires us to take care of the planet, so we have to do everything the liberals want, without question, and without requiring justification. Thankfully, Huckabee realized the jig was up for him in 2012 and he chose to sit it out.
Governor Rick Perry, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, does not carry the same baggage on crime or the environment. On both of those issues he has performed well here in Texas (meaning he's not soft on crime, and he's not an environmental nutcase). However, Governor Perry has a number of other issues that can legitimately lead one to question whether he's the best candidate. I shall list some of them here:
While Governor Perry has done a good job bringing up the problem of illegal immigration, and complaining that the federal government is not doing enough, he has done hardly anything at the state level, other than the mostly-symbolic deployment of the Texas Rangers to the border (it's symbolic because there are very few Rangers to begin with, so he could only deploy about 150 of them, total). He did sign a voter ID bill, but when it's passed veto-proof and more than half of the Democrats also want it, it's not too tough a call.
But when you get to taking steps that could make Texas unfriendly to Illegal Immigrants, that's where Governor Perry is quite similar to Bush-43. He seems to take the Catholic view that illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity, rather than as criminals, and while that view might be fine in an ideal world, Texas, with the rest of the country not far behind, is in danger of being demographically overwhelmed by minorities, and, just from a strategic Republican viewpoint, illegal immigration must be stopped. So there are a number of things that he has done and not done on the issue, all of which point to a governor that would just as well not get his hands dirty in what would be a nasty fight. That is his right, but do we want that as president? Here is a partial list.
a) Texas Dream Act. One of the first things he did in office was allow in-state Tuition for illegal residents - in fact, first in the country, I believe. As noted above, that acts a magnet for illegals trying to decide where to live. He has not done a thing to try to end it.
b) E-Verify Requirement. Not even a word in our vocabulary here. E-Verify threatens employers with penalties if they hire illegals. For example, in Arizona businesses are responsible for making sure their workers are legal through this system (or it may only apply to new workers there, not sure). This part of their immigration law was upheld by the Circuit Court. E-Verify is very simple to use, but a lot of big businesses (understandably) love illegals, and apparently they have the governor's ear more than the base. As big businesses proved in California, the long-term health of the state is simply not a matter of concern to them, only making money today (sorry, but that is just a fact, it doesn't mean I'm a left-winger...big business had deals with Nazi Germany in the 1940s...they are simply a-moral). The inability of California to get rid of its illegal problem has now wrecked the state, and they are rapidly descending into Third World status. Texas is next, probably within a decade, as the white voting percentage continues to get diminished. The rest of the country is 2 or 3 decades behind, but going the same way.
c) Sanctuary City Legislation. Governor Perry has been very slick on this one. He clearly does not want a bill hitting his desk...for then he has to take a stand on it. On the other hand, he knows how mad people are about the issue, as cops are being killed by illegals in Houston and Dallas who would have been deported long ago, had this law been passed. It's very simple for the police were allowed to challenge their legality - if they don't speak English, make them show papers, if they don't show papers, hand them to INS. So, twice in row this year, the governor has managed to keep this legislation bottled up in the state legislature...and has been able to blame those big, bad, Republicans that control 2/3s of the legislature* (more on this just below). The second go-around was amazing to watch, as it was a special session only requiring a simple majority to pass (Note, our legislature only meets from Jan to May in odd-numbered years; all other meetings are special sessions that have to be called by the governor, and he can call as many as he wishes. Also, all of the legislators have day jobs, as they get paid like crap when their in session, so they don't like special sessions and will eventually pass what the governor want - you'll see why I bring this up in a minute.). Basically, the legislature, during the special session, kept the Sanctuary City bill on the back burner until almost the very end. Then, when they did bring it up, they very conveniently needed a supermajority to get a vote on it (because it was so late)...and lo and behold...they couldn't find enough people. So rather than call a second special session, and maybe one after that (which would not be a first, as he called three special sessions to get his new business tax passed), Governor Perry said he was disappointed and that was it for Sanctuary City legislation this session. Well we were disappointed too...and not all that sure exactly how disappointed the governor was really was. The issue is off the table, and Illegals can still do their stuff without looking over their shoulders - just where we started this year.
*The question of just what could Governor Perry do, if the legislature will not pass the bill, often comes up. To me, it shows one of two things: Either he never had his heart in it (which is what I have to believe, given the lack of additional special sessions), or he is simply unable to get a legislature that is two-thirds Republican to pass a bill that the Republican base is dying for...meaning he is totally ineffective. You take your choice, but either way, I don't like it.
d) Border Fence. He basically doesn't like the idea, as it sends a bad message. I'll let the reader decide if they agree with that take.
So illegal immigration is probably his weakest point. But he does have others.
This was a new vaccine that had just gotten past its trials and was being pushed very hard by Merck. The intent of the drug is to prevent girls and women from contracting cervical cancer when they had sex. Governor Perry mandated this vaccine on pre-teen girls almost immediately after it hit the market. There is a lot of emotional debate on this, so I'll list off some arguments on this.
a) People could opt-out. Technically true, as anyone can opt out of the vaccine requirements. In raising my kid, of course, we were never told that and I doubt most people knew they could opt-out (and, in the vast majority of cases, they shouldn't opt out, or the vaccine would not be effective). In Texas, roughly 1,000 kids per year opt out of vaccinations. In order to opt out, one must swear that their religion prohibits vaccinations. Since most people don't want to commit felonies, most don't opt out. In the case of Gardasil, opting out may have become somewhat easier (not sure), but the vast majority of parents would probably not even have known their daughters were being given it, or at least what it was for. This leads to my next point...
b) In cities, where condoms have been handed out, girls often find themselves being pressured to have sex, since sex is now 'safe' and the schools have given it their implicit blessing. In the case of Gardasil, while the parents may have been oblivious to their daughters being inoculated, the boys at the middle and high schools certainly would not have been, and thus they would have even more ammo to pressure the girls. Like it or not, that's how things work in the real world for girls with their boyfriends...it's bad enough, already, for the ones that want to abstain, now they have society telling them, in effect, sex is fine, go have fun.
c) The effectiveness of the drug is very questionable, as it only prevents some forms of cervical cancer. Additionally, as was discovered elsewhere, the side effects, including some deaths from this drug, were very real.
d) The intent of inoculations is to prevent otherwise innocent people from contracting communicable diseases, where they have no control over their risk (like Measles). The only way to put Gardacil into this category is to say that it will help prevent cervical cancer in the case of forcible rape. Fortunately (unlike Scandinavia) forcible rape is very rare in this country, and no one has put forward this argument in support of Gardacil.
e) The idea that parents should be in charge of deciding whether their kids should be inoculated in this way, rather than the state, is a no brainer for conservatives, which makes the governor's push for it so difficult to explain away.
f) I've put forth the analogy that anyone who supports Gardasil being given to young girls should also support mandatory birth-control implants for these same girls. In both cases the idea is to lessen the risks involved in having underage sex and pregnancy is certainly a risk, and probably a much larger risk. Obviously this argument doesn't sit well with Perry supporters, but they have simply no retort to it.
The bottom-line is that issue cannot be explained away and it is already creating havoc between Perry and the conservative base, at least based on what I read on this site.
3) Trans-Texas Corridor
The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) was a grandiose plan for the state to build a huge network (many thousands of miles long) of car toll roads, truck toll roads, gas pipelines, power lines, train tracks, and who knows what else. The right of way required for this plan was on the order of 800 to 1000 feet. At this width, the crossings would be, at best 20 miles apart, along with the exits - meaning that communication between the sides of these corridors would be next to impossible. The plan, along with the necessary Constitutional Amendments was passed with almost no opposition, although that was likely because very few people knew about it - and it was a Republican governor proposing it to a Republican legislature, which is very dangerous for bad ideas (more on that later). Once passed opposition remained very scattered, as most people figured the plan was like a new NASA rocket, lots of studies and presentations, but never any hardware cut. Well that wasn't the case here and then the objections started pouring in.
a) First, the original plan never had public hearings. Hearings were called later, in order to determine the best alignment for the already-determined routes, but, like Gardasil, no hearings, or public input, was ever solicited for the original plan - it just appeared one day as a pronouncement from the governor. So it doesn't take much to figure out that once the public caught wind all hell was going to break loose. Specifically, the biggest opposition had to do with the fact that huge amounts of land was being taken away from its private owners and essentially handed to other private owners (i.e., the ones well-connected with the governor). Now technically, the land remained property of the state, but the right-of-ways were to be leased out to private companies to build and operate the toll roads (which were the first stages of this massive project). But the leases are on the order of 75 years, which, means that not only me, but my children, and even my future grandchildren would probably be outlived by these leases. So it certainly seems to people like myself that he was handing over this property to private enterprises. Which brings up the next point...
b) The private companies involved (really just one that keeps popping up, Cintra, a Spanish firm) are not idiots and are not going to invest billions on highways unless they can be certain of a captive audience. In other words, they don't want to build an East-West highway through Texas just to see a major upgrade on Interstate 10 (or Interstate 20), where people can still travel for free (at least for the time being). So, in order to assure their return on investment, they demand monopoly-type protections from the government, which were structured so that any time the government does anything to a parallel right of way that affects their traffic (such as expanding a parallel highway, building a new highway, or, arguably, even repaving an existing highway), the state has to pay the private company for the lost revenue. Now these private highways are very, very, expensive, on the order of 30 cents per mile to drive on (in Canada), so in many cases the state might decide to simply scuttle public highways, rather than try to maintain them (and have to pay the huge windfalls to Cintra)...thereby forcing people on to the toll road. Which then brings up the entire concept of regulation...discussed next.
(lots more, for those interested)
c) Conservatives like both deregulation and private enterprise, so what is there not to like about unregulated private highways? The answer is that for private enterprise to be in the public interest there must be competition - such as there was in airline deregulation. In many cases that is not practical, so you have monopolies, but they are always regulated (such as water, power, gas, etc.). For example, the power company could triple their prices tomorrow for electricity (if they were an unregulated monopoly) and there is virtually nothing you could do about it, except try to live without power. Yes, eventually, solar or wind might start to make sense, but needless to say, the power company would price just below that - and take in huge windfalls from their cheap fossil fuel and nuke plants. The bottom line, a few very rich power company owners, and millions of customers having to live in the stone age, without air conditioning and without Chevy Volts (LOL). Likewise on the highways. While not a total monopoly because people could always drive on side streets, allowing monopoly pricing will increase the cost of limited access roads (i.e., what were freeways) a huge amount. This happened in Canada, where Cintra bought an existing highway and now people find that driving is very, very, expensive when prices are pushed up to monopoly levels (roughly 30 cents per mile, which would be like paying an extra $7.50 per gallon for gas). Why? Because highways are generally very cheap, relatively speaking. The gas tax is roughly 2 or 3 cents per mile (both federal and state combined) and still covers all maintenance needed by all state and federal highways, and even has a bit of room left for expansion, paying the deficit (thanks a bunch, Mr. Clinton), and paying for public transportation, carpool lanes, and bike lanes. The highways that were going to be built in this TTC bypassed all of the cities, so land was very, very, cheap (especially with eminent domain helping out). Building highways, again, is very cheap, so there can be tons of money to be made here (same reason for such high gas prices in Europe...people will pay through the teeth to drive). The question became whether Cintra should pocket that money, or should the drivers pocket the money by not having to pay that price to drive. Governor Perry has taken Cintra's side and continues to cut these types of deals.
http://dcnonl.com/nw/23663/tt (note, the rates are in cents per kilometer; multiply by 1.6 to get cents per mile you can see Cintra means business when it comes to tolling)
d) The bottom line is that getting around Texas would have been crippled by these deals, in particular the non-compete clauses. Once the people figured this all out they revolted en-masse and the governor knew that his 2010 re-election was out of the question if he kept pushing forward with the TTC. So he officially put a spike through it, but unofficially kept working with the legislature to allow certain exceptions...some very big, that will still hurt us big-time. And yes, the legislature has given him these exceptions, in exchange for being able to say that they 'officially' killed it. And that leads to my next point about having a damaged governor (or president).
e) As Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) have shown over the years, it is much easier to oppose something dumb when the person doing it is from the other party. I'm not sure why, but I suspect the fear of retribution is much lower. So we had to endure the TTC concept for the better part of a decade, and we still cannot completely get rid of it. We saw something similar at the federal level with Bush-43 on Amnesty - it nearly passed, twice. We were very lucky to stop it and it cost us control of Congress and a lot of bad blood with Hispanics. But once the Dems got power, Amnesty was not even attempted (except for the Dream Act) - even though they had enough votes to get it through on a party-line vote - it wound up that we were safer from Amnesty with a Democrat as president, than a Republican. During Bush-41's run, the same thing happened with environmental legislation...horrible legislation passed. Bush-41 called it "trophy legislation", probably figuring that the country would be on their knees in praise of him by 1992...and we know how that all turned out. The legislation was written by a hugely Democrat Congress that simply wanted to destroy his chance for re-election and he went along and signed it. In fact, Dan Quayle spent much of 1991 and most of 1992 trying to figure out how to get around the same legislation that his boss had just signed...as they knew the country's economy, which was getting decimated as businesses tried to adjust to all of the new rules (including 'civil rights' laws, and wheelchair laws), would take him down in 1992, if nothing was done. In the end, of course, not enough was done and Clinton handed him his head. And the Sierra Club and other organizations that worked with Bush were nowhere to be found by November of 1992. In fact, by then, Bush-41 was considered a right-wing extremist by much of the country. That is why it's critical to elect people who can be trusted on critical issues, rather than electing someone deemed "electable"...which leads to the next topic.
4) The Texas Economic Miracle
Here in Texas, we have created jobs faster than the rest of the country combined, and yes, Governor Perry has been at the helm. Does he deserve credit and what specifically has he done? In fact, the main reason that he's on everyone's A-list for governor is because of the condition of the state, but when you ask people what he's specifically done, you usually get blank stares. So I'll help a bit here, starting with what his biggest accomplishment is.
a) Doing Very Little. While this sounds rather cynical, doing nothing is almost always better than trying to use government to solve problems. For example, Bush-43 tried to use the federal government to 'solve' the education crisis...that was a joke. He also kept talking about the 'ownership society' in regards to home ownership. And he did improve things somewhat, from something like a 65% ownership rate to a 69% ownership rate...but that was done by giving loans to deadbeats. And we all know how that ended...and we are back down to 65%, at most. Other governors, particularly in California and the Northeast, try to solve the world's problems by things like draconian emissions controls. But Governor Perry has done very little to damage Texas, at least for the time that he's governor. The time bombs being planted by the remnants of the TTC will, of course, damage us big-time, but Perry will be long out of office by then (and possibly on the board of Cintra, given some of his administration's very questionable revolving door policies). So, yes, the governor has done great in not doing anything and again, that is very often a big accomplishment when you get to that level of power.
b) Illegals. Relating to not doing anything is keeping Texas a friendly place for Illegal Aliens. As anyone who hires people to cut their lawn, or work on a house knows, Illegals are cheap and usually do very good work. Economically, these people are absolutely critical to Texas, and by being sure that they stay welcomed here, our economy does just fine.
c) Our State Constitution. One provision in our constitution pretty-much single-handedly kept us out of the housing bubble. That provision prohibited home equity "extractions" beyond 80% of its value, which meant that if you wanted to refinance, you were not going to cash-out on it as you can in most other states. This greatly limited the debt levels that people carried, and thus some of the insane parts of the housing bubble, like Option ARM loans (where you pay so little, initially, that the principal actually increases) never made it here big-time. Lots of luck here for Texans, and thankfully people long ago understood the damage that debt could do.
d) The Oil Economy. Unlike other sectors of the economy, oil has done great while the governor has been in power. This has encouraged lots of drilling and much of that work is Texas-based - again Perry has done nothing to discourage that work, so he does deserve praise for that.
e) Legal. A legal system that makes frivolous lawsuits rare. One of the few things that Bush-43 did right in his political career was fixing our tort system.
There are probably more (like having an excellent infrastructure, at least when he came into power), but I cannot think of much.
Well Perry can be elected, while others running cannot be as they are damaged goods due to the media - or so goes the conventional wisdom. The first way to deal with this is to look at Sarah Plain in 2008 (and no, I'm not shilling for her...but her example is a good one). Prior to being selected for VP, no one knew anything about her, and no one cared. Just after being selected the conservatives were ecstatic, and McCain even pulled into a slight lead. Then the media got to work and she was damaged (like it or not). In other words the media will tear apart any Republican who runs. The fact that they haven's yet gone after Perry does not assure us of anything, and Perry has a lot more for the media to work with than Plain ever did. A second example is President Reagan. In 1980, which I remember like yesterday, people, including Conservatives were scared to death of Reagan, not because he was a nutcase or dangerous (as in World War 3) but because Reagan would be portrayed that way...and he certainly was. But two other things happened. First, you had a failed Democrat presidency, and second he brought out the base, without hesitation. That is something that Governor Perry cannot do...there are a lot of doubts about him with the base and they show up every day on this site, and they're mostly not from me. So who's more electable, Perry, or a conservative that doesn't have these quirks - and no, the media cannot stop a conservative from being elected. You decide.
So, overall, as you can tell, I'm not yet in the Perry camp. I've purposely stayed (mostly) away from the corruption-end, but there is some very nasty stuff out there, and I can promise you that the Democrats have it, and will use it (and it cannot be retorted). I've lived here for 20 years, and the stuff that he's done that gives conservatives double-takes, along with the stuff he hasn't done (mainly immigration), convinces me that he would be a lot of trouble to deal with as president...quite similar to Bush-43 in that regard.
The following was written by Bruce Price, author of: "THE EDUCATION ENIGMA--What Happened To American Education.". This was published on April 21, 2011 and can be viewed here:
It is an AMAZING summary of the major problems with public schools. Read, but try not to smash your computer to the ground. Also note that Kumon, Sylvan, and serious homeschoolers do NOTHING on the list. This is my only non-original work in my home page.
1) PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SELF-ESTEEM: Consider a seemingly harmless and even appealing method called Self-Esteem. When educators claim that this new approach will lead to greater self-esteem, the public says, go ahead, surely everyone needs more of that! In practice, teachers are expected to give praise even when students dont make an effort; students become complacent and less industrious. Even worse, you have a relentless pressure against making academic demands on children, because failure will damage their self-esteem. You see where this is going? Finally, the teacher says, Hello, class! Youre wonderful. That is all that can happen. The moment the teacher actually teaches, the self-esteem levels will drop, which cannot be tolerated. Self-Esteem, all by itself, can render a school null and void.
2) PUBLIC EDUCATION AND CONSTRUCTIVISM: Constructivisms basic claim is that children must invent their own new knowledge. A mountain of so-called research make this process sound as if it is wonderful, necessary, and inevitable. But we need to ask, how would children learn the names of the states or the important events of the American Revolution? Now you start to see the flaw: basic information can rarely be taught with Constructivism. A child might need hours or days to construct his way to a page of facts. The teacher must constantly nudge children toward their discovery of new knowledge, much as children are given hints to find Easter egg. In fact, these magical events wont usually happen at all. Constructivism is vastly popular now in the public schools, a good explanation for why kids know so little.
3: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND THE ART OF MEMORIZATION: The Education Establishment came up with two slogans that have been used relentlessly for more than 60 years: Rote memorization is bad and They can look it up. This gospel (which cuts across all subject and all grades) states that children shouldnt bother retaining information. Lets confront what the Education Establishment is actually saying here: students should have empty heads. (Testing is kept soft and subjective so that students are not often asked if they know or dont know something.) Since the time of John Dewey, there was always a hostility toward teaching foundational knowledge in the first place. But demonizing memory is the easiest way to make sure that, should anything be taught, nobody can recall what it was.
4) COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN PUBLIC EDUCATION TODAY: The whole point of Deweys collectivist theory is to create cooperative children. They work and play well together. The next step invariably was to put four or five children at little tables, to let them think of themselves as a group, not individuals. Work will be performed by the group. There was no individual achievement, only group achievement; no individual blame, only group blame. As a practical matter, children never learn how to think for themselves or act by themselves. They always have the shelter and comfort of being inside of a group. The better students carry the weaker students, and everybodys grades are muddled. But thats the point in the collectivist classroom.
5) PUBLIC EDUCATION AND NEW MATH / REFORM MATH / NATIONAL STANDARDS: There are many separate curricula under those three headings, and yet they all have one thing in common: they mix advanced, complicated math with elementary arithmetic. The sales pitch is that children will learn to appreciate math at a higher level. The actual result is that children dont learn to do basic arithmetic. The proper way to teach arithmetic is that children master the simple stuff (1+2=3), then move to the less simple, then to the intermediate, and so on. New Math and its intellectual descendants were failures, and were abusive to children. Learning long division is hard enough. Just imagine that the crazies at your school mix in base-eight, set theory, some Boolean algebra, geometry, and pre-trig. Result: almost nobody can do arithmetic in a confident, automatic way.
6) SIGHT-WORD READING IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION AGENDA: Focus on the central fact that English is a phonetic language, like Latin and French. Its alphabet and word forms were designed to quickly communicate phonetic information, that is, you see a b, B, b, a script b, or B in any of hundreds of typefaces), and your brain immediately knows: buh-. English words are so similar; and every word comes in many different forms: bright, BRIGHT, etc. Its almost impossible for an ordinary human to memorize even 1,000 of these shifty little designs, never mind the 50,000+ word-shapes you need. But the Education Establishment pushed Whole Word relentlessly, claiming that children must memorize the English language one word at a time as graphic configurations. I would argue that Whole Word is prima facie impossible. Memorizing even a few hundred sight-words can take several years; so literacy happens very slowly. All the things that children used to learn in the first, second, third and fourth grades became impossible, not just reading but also geography, history, etc. Whole Word is, I believe, the official hoax of the Education Establishment. Its the paradigm of bad education. It cant work. It hurts children. And so the journey to hell begins for the United States:
I posted the following on Feb 27, 2011...
Actually, if we get out of this mess at even $300, Ill be happy.
The way I see it, the cut-off of Mid-East oil (which will hit mid-March) will drive the price up to $300, maybe a bit more...then it will sloooooooooly drop as demand and supply shift to compensate.
But also, even without a cut-off of supply, the crash of the dollar will have us paying $300 also (basically, the dollar will lose two-thirds of its value in the world market).
If the two are put together, then were looking at $900 oil, or about $25 per gallon. Hard to believe, but theyll have to add a digit to the pumps again (like when we broke the buck on gas).
Obviously at that price, big, big changes are in store for the United States and they will NOT be fun. But we will get to experience how the Third World lives...which has ALWAYS been the goal of Democrats and school teachers (I couldnt help adding that one).
How long we stay in that mess and what we look like long-term is anyones guess. We have the ability to be the freest country on the planet, but if we spend our time blaming Big Oil we will not get anywhere...and may not pull out.
So, stock up now, on EVERYTHING. Prepare to ride out a storm that is still unimaginable for 99.99% of the country. It will be quite a journey.
Now, for some older stuff:
“If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high you’d laugh and say nothing that simple, but you’ve been told many times before messiah’s point you to the door though no one’s got the guts to leave the temple.” The Who, 1969.
Actually, it is quite easy to get there. Just follow a few simple rules (for straight guys):
1) Marry someone NOT born in the USA. They will not have the feminist baggage, and, most likely, they will place a MUCH higher value on maintaining a marriage than cashing in on a divorce. Just for insurance, have them listen to, or read, some of Dr. Laura’s material - that will seal it.
2) NEVER go into debt, except, maybe, for a house - and even there, don’t overpay. If you live in an area with overpriced housing (and, yes, you will know that), then forget owning - it’s meaningless if you wind up being a slave to your house. Be SURE that the future misses knows and agrees to the plan. If you can remove the stress of debt, you have a HUGE head start.
3) Learn what you can do to take control of your life. If you’ve never worked on cars before, then sign up at a community college. When things break, figure out how to fix them - buy manuals, or use the Internet, it works great. Always buy the tools you need and don’t get discouraged if you make minor mistakes (like changing the wrong part) - you will still come out WAY ahead.
4) Same for a house, but even more so. If you can minimize the number of strangers coming in for any reason, you will greatly cut down on your chances of being robbed. Bad guys REALLY want to have an objective in the house (like jewelry), before they risk their lives to break in. Sure, John (who comes in to work for you) might be a fine guy, but how about Mike, the High School kid with him - and who does Mike know - perhaps some people interested in what you have? Bottom line, learn how to fix things yourself. Not fool-proof - even I have people come in once in a while, but greatly reduces your exposure.
5) Keep your costs down. If you are spending more than about 60% of your take-home pay on credit cards and essentials, you’re spending too much. Buy a house where you can maintain a low number - so that you can save for important things, like paying CASH for your next car.
6) Avoid scams - like timeshares, Mary Kay, etc. They are typically design to drain money from you. There’s NOTHING to gain from a timeshare - just pay for the hotel room once a year. Do the math - you can get a REALLY NICE room for the price of the timeshare - and forget about selling your timeshare...just won’t happen (see internet forums if you need more info). Also, operations like Mary Kay are designed to make you work your tail off, just to break even. If you do actually make a few dollars, figure out what your per-hour rate is and is it REALLY worth your wife ignoring the kids and spending all of her time on this. Yes, housewives want to feel like theyre contributing, but there are MUCH BETTER ways to do that (such as learning website design, for example).
7) Buy in bulk and figure out a way to store what you buy. If you try hard, even a relatively small apartment can be made to store LOTS OF STUFF. Forget about image and appearance, financial security is MUCH more important.
8) In that light, IGNORE what others think of you. If you are living a moral life then all is well...others DO NOT MATTER. If they judge you based on how much money you waste on CRAP, then they’re not worth having as friends. There are 300,000,000 Americans, not all of them think that way.
9) Take control of Junior’s education. Teach him reading YOURSELF. Unless the kid is retarded, he can learn reading by Age 4 long before the schools get to mess with him. There is NO REASON to rely on a bunch of strangers (who, if you knew their politics you would HATE) to perform this vital task for you. It’s easy and can be done VERY QUICKLY (as in a few months). Math is tougher, but again, NEVER expect strangers to do a decent job, you’re rolling the dice they have NO SKIN in the game. Buy Saxon Math books (the old hard cover...not the new crap), and make junior work EVERY problem...you’ll be shocked at the results.
10) On that note, make sure that Junior knows who’s boss, from DAY ONE. When Junior is young and misbehaves, treat him like a dog, don’t try to reason, just WHACK HIM...he’ll actually get the message much quicker that way and will appreciate you in the long run (provided that you make it clear why youre doing it and limit the extent to what is needed). Do it while they are very young (i.e., just old enough to cause trouble) and life will be VERY EASY later. Skip this critical step (that has been used for 5,000 years of recorded history, until the last generation), and you’ll wind up with a MONSTER that you will have to DRUG OUT.
11) Keep your personal and family life to YOURSELVES. No one needs to know how you feel about ANYTHING. If your anus is sore, that is YOUR PROBLEM, it does not need to be your coworker’s problem. Just hold it in and try to act normal.
12) Avoid badmouthing others at work - simply keep quiet, or better yet, say something good, even if the person is a TOTAL JERK. Talking bad about a coworker reflects as much on the talker as the coworker. NEVER complain to the boss about ANYTHING, unless there is a real need for them to take action. If a coworker is too loud, then try something, anything, but DO NOT COMPLAIN to the boss (i.e., maybe move). Again, it simply makes you look like a loser...even if you don’t think so. Complaining turns you into a “high maintenance” worker who bosses HATE and who bosses will get rid of as soon as possible - even if you are good at what you do.
and now on to other subjects
Here are my main concerns with italic suggests on how to deal with them:
1) The Chinese. Right now, the entire east coast of China is living at western standards (about 150 Million people). That part of China has caught up to us economically. The country as a whole is growing at around 9% per year, we grow at 3% per year (or less). China’s GNP is $6.5 Trillion, we’re at $11 Trillion (both numbers from the CIA website and World Almanac in 2006). If you do the math, the Chinese economy will surpass us in 2015. If you continue the math, they will double our size in about 2025. At that point, and considering that they have 350 million men of fighting age, they will be able to dictate terms to us (and outspend us military, if they so choose), rather than the other way around. What’s being done? Not much. Do people seem to care? No. Why not? Because it’s never happened before - therefore it will not happen in the future. That tends to be the thinking of the anointed. Here are some of my suggestions as to how to deal with them - they’re worth what you paid for them.
a) Accept Reality!! Many people, even on this website, have a prejudicial attitude towards China - they simply believe that China is inferior, and thus we have nothing to worry about. It is the same attitude that we had towards the Nazis and Japanese prior to World War 2, and the results of that policy are well documented. While it may be true that China will someday implode, do we want to base our surival on that hope? We certainly didn’t take that approach during the Cold War.
b) Keep our Nukes!! It will take China a long time to match our capability. They don’t need to be armed and ready to fire, but they do need to be at least readily retrievable. President Bush, to his credit, has been doing that. He’s moved most of our nukes out of service but kept them intact and easy to re-activate. A Democrat on the other hand would take any available excuse to permanently destroy our weapons (since they consider OUR weapons to be the biggest obstacle to peace in the world).
c) Identify the threat and the capability. One of President Reagan’s better moves during the Cold War was to commission an annual report on Soviet military capability. It was a full-color glossy report showing (to the extent of our capability) what they had. I bought one from the Government Printing Office in the early 80s, now, of course you just post it on the web.
d) Using the above report, determine what we need to stay ahead, and simply spend the necessary money. The Constitution requires it. What’s left over can be spent on government goodies. The basic point being that government spending needs to be prioritized with Constitutionally required spending being top priority (Military, Government functions, courts, border control, etc.), and all other items being financed with whatever is left. Right now we have it exactly backwards - Social Security and other entitlements have priority over military spending - they don’t even need to be authorized each year.
e) State flat-out that any politician or party that will not recognize this quickly emerging threat has no business in national politics. Obviously this means the Democrats as a whole, as well as some Republicans. National security should not be an issue traded off against school lunches or even Social Security. If this country loses a war, it’s unlikely that the aggressors will really care that much about Prescription Drug benefits. Anyone putting the two side-by-side has no business in national politics. They can do a lot of things at the state and lower levels, but they certainly do not belong in the White House or Congress (but, unfortunately we will always be stuck with some of them).
f) The overall goal is to stay strong enough to be safe until China either collapses or becomes a friendly country. Right now they feel that they’re entitled to their half of the planet and they are taking methodical steps to stake their claim. We will bump into them, maybe in the middle of the Pacific, and we need to make it clear to them that we will not be pushed around.
...on to Europe
The year was 1683. Isaac Newton was spending his time in England putting the finishing touches on a set of equations that would launch the Industrial Revolution. The colonies in the New World were getting firmly established. Galileo and his telescope were old hat, with the astronomer having died 41 years earlier. But over in Eastern Europe, things were ugly, and getting worse by the minute. The city was Vienna, Austria, and they under a vicious attack that was literally one day from wiping out Christian Europe. The Ottomans meant business, and by taking Vienna, the rest of Europe would be a cake-walk. The walls of the great city were under attack from newly invented gunpowder. The citizens had, at most, several days before they would be finished off.
But then, with parts of the walls already breached, came a gentleman by the name of Jan Sobieski, a Polish leader with 30,000 troops, and a cause. Mr. Sobieski decided that Europe was not yet ready to be Islamic, and he went on to totally decimate the 140,000 troops that the Ottoman leader, a Mr. Kara Mustapha Pasha had at his disposal. The Ottomans were through forever, and Europe would be free of the Muslim threat for the next 300 years.
And that brings us to today. Things are different, now. Europe is once again under attack by Muslims, but there are no guns (to speak of) being fired. No, this attack is much more insidious, and MUCH more threatening. It is a DEMOGRAPHIC ATTACK. The Muslims were invited in by the Europeans over the past 3 decades, for various reasons, and they have decided to not just stay, but to actively outpopulate the whites. Unfortunately, the whites are doing just about everything possible to help out. It is now rare to see any white families with more than one child - assuring a collapsing population. At the same time that the Muslims are launching a voracious, multi-front, demographic attack, the whites are committing demographic suicide.
So how will it end? There are several possible outcomes, and none of them are pretty. The whites could decide to yield, and allow the Muslims to take over. They would then be at their mercy. The whites could decide to clear out their countries of Muslims - but that would be very ugly. By my estimation, the whites have no more than about 10 years to make up their minds, and another 5 years or so to get to work (if they decide to fight). After that time, there will simply be too few fighting age whites - Europe will have plenty of old whites, but far too few able to fight.
And what if the European whites consider repopulating. Wish them luck - not only will they have an extreme shortage of fighting men, they will, of course, have an extreme shortage of women of childbearing age. In other words, their families will have to average something like 4 or 5 kids, unheard of today, and the mothers will have to start young.