Scientific Method

January 10, 2014

30 years ago "scientists" used the Polar Vortex as evidence of global cooling. NOW, they're using the same Polar Vortex as evidence of global warming! What's the deal? Well, it's all about two things: Money and control. Whatever issue the politicians are currently using (or, more accurately CAN use) in attempts to control people, they will throw money in the hands of eager "scientists" to "research" the issue-de-jour. Let's face it: I don't trust any scientist I don't know personally because for decades now they've all been for sale.

If you remember your high-school science, there used to be such a thing as the Scientific Method - a set of procedures that were designed to let the evidence speak for itself, and where you would follow the evidence wherever it led you, even if it was the opposite of what you expected. No longer. Now "scientists" stake out a position (many times based on funding available, ideology, or more likely, both), and drive the research to prove that position. That's not science - that's ideological advocacy.

Unfortunately, medicine has followed suit, and many "Doctors" now practice "percentage medicine" where if the symptoms fit into a particular slot, then that's what you have - no further tests necessary. I actually had a "Doctor" tell me one time I had arthritis when all I had was an injured joint, because (a) that's the slot the symptoms fit into, and (b) he'd recently been diagnosed with arthritis, so surely I had the same thing.

OK, so what's my point? Just because someone has years of college and wears a white suit doesn't make them smart. You have to think for yourself. These people are just tools, and nowadays it's more and more dangerous to take them at their word, particularly when they're being paid by people with an agenda.

Personally I believe science died when Darwin's theory began to be accepted as fact. The downward spiral of the scientific method has led us to Al Gore. It's just that simple!

Sub-Standard Administration

Monday, December 2, 2013


Obamacare, a term which the President is now actively distancing himself from, causes the creation of classes of health care coverage that differ significantly from traditional health insurance policies. These plans include such things as mandated pre-existing coverage, mandated coverage for pregnancies, mandated coverage for birth control, mandated coverage for abortion services, and other one-size-fits-all items that insurers must offer. If you don't take one of these policies, you'll end up paying a tax at the end of the year. These non-Obamacare-mandated policies have been labeled "sub-standard" policies by the Administration in an attempt to indicate there's something wrong with them. Well....

I will probably never be pregnant. I will probably never need an abortion. Since I'm married and we've had all the children we're going to have and had that issue successfully taken care of, I'll not be needing birth control. BUT, the insurers cannot deduct these items from my premium calculations because they're mandated by the law. Thus, I'm paying for things I'll never need. In reality, I'm paying for someone else's premiums for these things. That's theft, and there's no way to spin it otherwise. I'm sorry, but I don't want to pay for your pregnancy-related coverage, but the government is making me!

Now. We've recently had a coverage problem in our family where a policy that was adequate for what we needed has now been canceled, and we're scrambling to find a replacement. IF we could get to the Obamacare site, the prices I've seen are higher than what we were paying, and contains things we don't need. We can get coverage from a policy that doesn't contain all these Obamacare-mandated items, but we'll have to pay the tax at the end of the year. Eventually, the government will force these companies from business by increasing the non-compliance tax at the end of the year, and we'll be forced into the Obamacare system anyway, which was the intent in the first place no matter what the liars in the White House have said.

ONLY the liberals/progressives could come up with a system where they declare an entire industry in crisis, then come up with a solution that is infinitely more complicated and inifitely worse than the existing system, while at the same time taking freedom away from every American. So, tell me, why don't we have the tar hot, the feathers ready, and the rail hoisted ready to plant tarred-and-feathered politicians onto on their way out of town?

We don't have sub-standard insurance policies. We have sub-standard men in place in Washington. We have a sub-standard Administration!

Snow[den] Job

January 6, 2014

All right, I've done a lot of thinking about this Edward Snowden deal, and I've come to what I think is the right course of action. It looks like to me he tried to do the right thing the wrong way. What he did was illegal. Should he be prosecuted? Tell you what....when the President of the United States is impeached; when Hillary Clinton is barred from public office; when Eric Holder is prosecuted for his part in one of several activities, not the least of which is Fast N Furious; and when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are forced from office - THEN I say we prosecute Edward Snowden. Until then, let him go and give HIM a $4 million vacation to Hawaii!