Monday, October 31, 2016

Gang Bang vs. Big Bang: The Crazy Conservative Defends the Ultimate Scientist

I know this is a bit of my regular beaten path, but I get into arguments with atheists about creation among a number of other issues. So, after some thought, I figured I would throw in my own Theory of Everything. To begin with most of the people that claim to be atheists are just people with some animosity toward God. But, this is for the genuine atheists who, for the most part, think themselves too intelligent to believe in God. Also, I am limiting this to God the Creator, there will be no discussion of ethics or morals.

In the beginning, according to the Big Bang theory, there was nothing. Then gravity caused nothing to become so dense that it imploded and the resulting explosion caused the universe. Impossible, even for scientists, it defies the laws of physics. For there to be gravity there has to be mass, or matter, if you prefer. Nothing by its very definition is a negative- an absence of matter. Physics also tells us that matter can not be created or destroyed. As scientific explanations go, the Biblical explanation is by far and away superior because it assumes the existence of matter in the heavens, they were just without form. Another hole in their theory is that there was some starting point from which the explosion occurred and the newly created universe began to expand. Expand into what? Something cannot expand into nothing, it must expand into space which is something. Scientists once thought of space as a vacuum but now believe that it has form, what they call black matter. It is more reasonable to believe that the matter that is the universe has always existed and coalesced into larger bodies that exert gravity upon one another.

There is also the issue of randomness. Atheists seem to believe that the universe occurred randomly, without any pattern, yet patterns are evident throughout the entire universe. If you look at it in its entirety, the universe is a cosmic ballet set to a beautiful symphony of physics (Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would be describing physics as a symphony!) It is far more reasonable to believe that there is a design to all this rather than it being the product of chaos.

People need to be able to understand things in some contextual framework. However, there are some things that we, as mere mortals, are inadequate to understand. We put things into temporal (time) paradigms so that we can understand them better. Also we think of things in terms of size. Concepts such as infinite escape us although we understand the meaning of the term. The universe has no spatial dimension. There is nothing at the "far side of the universe" because there is no far side. There is also no such thing as time in a universal sense. Ultimately, it is inconsequential how big the universe may be- we're never going to make it out of our own solar system, much less our galaxy. Perhaps we'd be better off worrying about how to fix problems here rather than how to get somewhere far, far away.

Time is a convenience, nothing more. What use does God have for time, He and the universe have always been here. The universe did not begin at 3:15AM on a Tuesday 10 billion years ago. Always is another interesting term that we are incapable of understanding. We feel compelled to put an age to everything. What difference would it make to know when the universe began (if theoretically it did). What could we possibly do with the information except amuse ourselves. Although time may aid us in getting to work on time, in a universal sense it is useless.

The reason that the laws of physics work is because it is how God has designed the universe and everything in it to work. The same can be said of biological laws and any other "natural" laws. There is a grand design to the universe orchestrated by a grand designer. There is no chaos, only an inability of humans to understand all that is God. Like time and space, God is another concept that our minds are incapable of grasping the enormity of. If you were to ask me "is God this, or that?" I would answer yes, and more. Because an individual might not have the capacity to understand something it does not mean that the thing doesn't exist. Ultimately, we don't need to understand God...He understands us.

Now, for the fun part. While contemplating time and space, something occurred to me. Instead of a big bang that got everything started off, maybe there were a series of smaller bangs. Based on the premise that the universe has always (there's that word again) been here, isn't it possible that these implosions have been going on all the time (and still are) on a smaller scale- a Gang Bang theory, as the happen continuously throughout the universe. What we know about black holes is threefold: One, they come in various sizes, some large enough to swallow a galaxy. Two, they distort whatever they swallow up. Three, they exert an enormous amount of gravity. Isn't it possible that the purpose of black holes is exert enough gravity to swallow (I apologize for not having a more scientific term) up heavenly bodies of whatever size (stars, galaxies or whatever) and expel a new solar system, galaxy or whatnot-a new "creation." No one has ever observed what comes out of a black hole; or perhaps we have and don't know it.

I hope this has been helpful or at least mildly amusing. Remember, although I may be crazy, I try not to be too stupid. At least I thought about it. My answer to this, like everything else- God did it! Thanks for reading...please let me know what you's got to be at least as good as what I can come up with.

The Devil Made Me Do It: Loretta Lynch and the Absence of Intent

I had to watch this video twice, I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that she didn't indict Sec. of State Hillary Clinton on criminal charges because there was "no intent." Intent has nothing to do at all with criminal offenses. Let's look a little closer at this potential defense.

If you are driving along yakking on your cell and slam into a minivan killing a family, clearly there was no intent to do harm. Good luck with that one in court. Under the law you are criminally liable, the only mitigating factor that may pertain to intent is the degree to which you will be prosecuted. For example, because you did not intend to do harm, you may be charged with vehicular manslaughter rather than homicide.

Similarly, if I walk out of the house with my trusty .45, I do not necessarily have an intent to do harm, only protect myself. If someone should piss me off and I shoot them, am I not criminally liable because I didn't intend to shoot anyone that day? Once again, good luck with that one.

The absence of intent can be taken to any number of illogical conclusions. Someone dressed up in a KKK outfit goes to burn down a house, gets right up to the house and has a change of heart...while turning to walk away, a gust of wind blows the flame and ignites the house. Clearly, there is no intent; in fact he intended NOT to burn the house. Unless the culprit gets a jury of 12 Klansmen, I think the outcome of the trial is pretty certain. There are actual cases where lawyers have argued that their clients were innocent because their intent was absent, or somehow blurred by some other mitigating factor.

In Maryland a bodybuilder flew into a rage killing his girlfriend- most likely a case of "roid rage." His attorney argued that his client had consumed sugar and was propelled into a sucrose-fueled state of hyper-violence and was not responsible for his actions. This later became known in the legal field as the "Twinkie defense." I'm not kidding.

Maybe Hillary can use the Flip Wilson defense "the Devil made me do it." Actually, in her case this may not be so far from the truth. Back in the 1990's a man named Charles Sykes wrote a book called  A Nation of Victims. In it he outlined case after case where lawyers argued (more often than not quite successfully) that no one is responsible for their actions anymore. One case particularly struck me because of how absolutely ridiculous it was. In Wisconsin an admitted flasher applied for a job as a park attendant and was turned down because of his criminal past. He admitted flashing over 40,000 times and was convicted 30 or 40 times. Now I don't know about you, but here's a guy I want kept as far away from my kids as humanly possible. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that because he had only flashed in libraries and laundromats, his civil rights had been violated. Not only did he get the job, he got a handsome cash settlement as well.

I know we've wandered pretty far away from Loretta Lynch and the Clinton investigation, but it was to make this point: If we can't depend on those in power to act responsibly, who can we depend on? This absence of responsibility seems to have become a part of our national psyche. The highest prosecutorial agent in government glibly refused to indict someone probably guilty of a plethora of crimes for a lack of intent? Many, many people have been incarcerated for far less.

I think that this issue really defines what separates liberals from conservatives...conservatives believe in personal responsibility...liberals believe that everything is someone else's fault (usually Donald Trump these days).

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Anthony's Weiner: It's Gotta Be Big???

With revelations coming at us at breakneck speed, I'm going to try to put the reopening of the FBI investigation in some least from the perspective of a crazy conservative. The cover story is that FBI Director James Comey has decided to reopen the investigation due to e-mails uncovered during the Anthony Weiner sexting investigation. The e-mails in question are supposed to have been found on Huma Abedin's laptop (for anyone that has been on Mars or lost at sea for the last 6 months, Huma is Weiner's estranged wife and Hillary's "right hand"). Whatever could these e-mails contain?

What seems more likely is that the case against the former Sec. of State is being reopened because of something much bigger. It has been intimated on social media and alternative news sources that the 33,000 missing e-mails from Hillary's private server are NOT gone, but in the possession of hackers- particularly Anonymous. It is said that Anonymous (likely via Wikileaks) is about to release these e-mails to the public very soon. The FBI and most especially Director Comey has lost an enormous amount of credibility over their failure to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for what seem to be numerous criminal offences. The case has become so prominent that even the MSM has started paying attention. What could be so profound that it would awaken the media out of their liberal thinking induced coma?

It is doubtful that some e-mails between Huma the Mole and her pervert ex-husband would do the trick. It has to be something much larger. It is practically axiomatic that the MSM has lost most of their credibility- they enjoy an even less favorable credibility rating than congress. In order to save what little face they have left, they must stop covering up for Democrats and begin to cover news. It's pretty sad when hackers enjoy a higher favorability rating that network news. So, I believe we can assume that the "pretty big" is most likely the e-mails intercepted by Anonymous. Kinda funny though...makes me think about Edward Snowden and his leak. The NSA, who track every electronic transmission in the USA (if not the entire world) missed 33,000 transmissions but a hacker who, for all we know, might be some pimply kid that lives in his mother's basement, found them (I don't actually believe that's who Anonymous is). This does not, however, let Huma and her recently estranged Weiner off the hook.

What do we know about Huma Abedin? (Beside that fact that she is obviously attracted corrupt, ugly women and really creepy guys) Her father has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood...some say that he is the Grand Poobah, or whatever sobriquet they give their leaders. And, what do we know about our Muslim in Chief? We know that he has very strong Muslim ties and if he's not a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, his sympathies certainly lie with them. Who can forget his now famous declaration: "Should the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I stand with Islam." Perhaps the e-mails on Huma's laptop may not be as innocent as they might seem. Perhaps the 33,000 deleted will prove disastrous to him. There are likely references to Benghazi and his administration's failure to provide basic security, not to mention military support our ambassador and his security team.

Whatever comes out between now and the election- I'm hearing Nov.1, it is unlikely to sway undecided voters toward the Democrats.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

SHOCK WIKILEAKS: Assange's "Final Blow to Hillary's Campaign" as FBI Reo...

This is an addendum to Wars and Rumors of War...Very revealing!

GUILTY...A Defense of Sheriff Joe

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been indicted by the Obama administration for criminal contempt of court. The indictment is for an racial profiling charge that dates back to 2007...before Obama was even president. The case charges that Maricopa County deputies were unfairly targeting Latino drivers. Some facts overlooked by liberal news stories: Maricopa County is over-run with illegal immigrants. In the mid 1990's it was estimated that in excess of 60% of Arizona drivers had no insurance- this figure is even higher in the Hispanic community. The felonies and misdemeanors committed in Maricopa County are disproportionately committed by Hispanics. So, if a policeman was to pull over a car full of Latinos, the odds of catching someone with a warrant, or invalid license are pretty good. This is not profiling, it is keeping the community at large safe.

While in Phoenix I had the honor of freelancing articles to the Maricopa County Deputies Assn Magazine and have interviewed Sheriff Joe on more than one occasion. He is a dedicated, no nonsense, common sense law enforcement professional. Probably why he has been re-elected every time he runs. People love to complain about Sheriff Joe, but the vote for him every time. Let's look at some of the things he is guilty of.

Early into his first term as sheriff there was a problem with armed felons robbing Christmas shoppers whose arms were full of gifts while walking to their cars in the local mall parking lots. Sheriff Joe recruited a mounted posse to patrol the parking lots and within days the problem stopped- Guilty as charged!

The "pink underwear controversy." It made national news when Sheriff Joe began making inmates wear pink underwear. It was described by  anti-law enforcement activists as demeaning. However, there was a rational explanation" Inmates were stealing the white underwear provided by the county costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. In the sheriff's own words: "Nobody wears pink underwear." The thefts stopped saving the taxpayers thousands: Guilty again.

I'm not going to go on and on listing Sheriff Arpaio's many accomplishments, but rather let's look at who is indicting him. Sheriff Joe was instrumental in bringing the "birther" issue into the public spotlight- something that I'm sure didn't endear him to Obama. Given that the Obama administration is the most corrupt in history, it seems a bit hypocritical to indict a man who has dedicated 45 years of his life to enforcing laws. Admittedly, Arpaio's methods have been to say the least unorthodox, however, he has always put the wellbeing of his constituents ahead of his own- a claim that Obama can hardly make, unless you interpret "constituents" to mean George Soros, Goldman Sachs, and other global elites. The only reason I can see that Obama supports Hillary Clinton for president is so that he won't go down in history as the most corrupt, divisive and basically the worst president in history.

I wish Sheriff Joe the best and hope he prevails in his upcoming trial. Mr. Arpaio: you are guilty- guilty of being an honest man...guilty of being a fine law enforcement officer and guilty of being a good American. Too bad our president can't make the same claim.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Clinton Foundation Corruption | Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux

Wars and Rumors of Wars

As the election nears so do suggestions of impending doom. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia has openly declared that if Hillary Clinton is elected, war will most certainly ensue. One high ranking member of the Russian Parliament has said the very same thing. Russian officials have recalled their citizens from around the world and municipalities have begun stockpiling supplies. Mr. Putin has wondered openly why the Western media have been silent on the subject. Alternative media is the only place that information is available. One must necessarily ask why? This is the obvious evidence and is readily available to anyone with an inclination to look. I would heartily recommend doing so. However, there are other indications more subtle.

The Clinton Foundation has been busy bilking citizens of the world out of billions & billions of dollars if not more. Charles Ortel, Wall Street advisor and expert is also an attorney and expert on tax exempt charities. He believes that in total the Clinton Foundation and their allies have perhaps swindled people around the world out of in excess of a trillion dollars. What does this have to do with war, you ask? The answer is fairly easy, if not simple.

In 1997, the Clintons became part of what was to be known as the Clinton-Bush Haiti Relief Fund. The name itself suggests a bi-partisan effort to aid the people of Haiti after a natural disaster...if that's what the money had been used for. All evidence indicates that it was not, implicating both the Clinton's (Democrats) and Bush's (Republicans) in a bi-partisan swindle. This "fund" morphed into the President William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Archives (whose actual archives have never been disclosed) and Foundation. Like a snake winding it's way through the grass, the PWJCPA&F morphed into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and now with its plethora of sub-foundations is now just the Clinton Foundation. According to Mr. Ortel, none of these foundations are properly registered or have they been properly scrutinized by Federal or State agencies that oversee charities. One sub-foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative has come under criticism for purchasing cheap, ineffective aids vaccine from a disreputable Indian pharmaceutical company and distributing it to third-world countries. Of course the headlines read: Clinton Foundation Provides Affordable Aids Medicine to Third World Countries, but the truth indicates more of the matrix of deceit and corruption.

Like the arms of an octopus the associations of the Clinton Foundation stretch out throughout a veritable maze of who's who of the power elite. While Bill Clinton was president his Dept. of Justice ran an anti-trust investigation of Microsoft. Presumably, some sort of settlement was reached. What is important, is that when Microsoft was being investigated in Europe, Bill Clinton interceded on their behalf. Wonder why? So do I! The Foundation managed by Bill and Melinda Gates is a heavy contributor to the Clinton Foundation bringing into question the legitimacy of their foundation. Gates close friend, Warren Buffet contributes heavily to the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is currently under indictment in India for testing dangerous and often lethal vaccines on children. The web of deceit grows larger and larger. But what does all this have to do with impending war?

All of these misdeeds are personified by the Democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The individuals who contribute to her foundation in what has been characterized by "pay for play" have paid plenty to get access to former Sec. of State Clinton, now as well as when she was in office. Many of these contributors represent countries with interests inimical to those of America, as well as Russia. Current U.S. President Barack Obama has denied any knowledge of HRC's private e-mail server being used for classified material. This is criminal, not only for Mrs. Clinton, but for President Obama as well. Let me make it clear that there is NO indication that the President is involved in any way with the foundation and their shady dealings. But that is not his problem.

As the noose draws tighter and tighter around Mrs. Clinton and her malefactions as Secretary of State, will he be drawn in as well? I've researched presidential pardon powers lately and find the power to be very broad. But, can a president pardon someone for a crime to which he himself is involved? And, more important, how far will he go to protect himself? He has already been proven to be a malignant narcissist- will he sacrifice his own countrymen to save face and perhaps his own skin? Much rides on the upcoming election. Not only the hopes of this nation, but its very survival may rest with Donald Trump. Mr. Trump does not wish to get into a shooting (and perhaps nuclear) war with Russia over Syria. One thing is clear...we do not need to "drain the swamp." The survival of America may very well depend on pumping the septic tank!

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Culture of Death: Margaret Sanger & Planned Parenthood

I keep hearing Hillary Clinton claim some spiritual kinship to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Cloaked in a benign sounding name lies a nefarious organization that readily kills millions of infants under the guise of  providing women with readily available health care. This should be of concern to everyone because their primary funding comes from the American taxpayer, as well as the odious practice of selling infant's body parts.

There is a profound kinship between Sanger,Clinton and Planned Parenthood,but it has nothing at all to do with women's health. What Planned Parenthood is, and has always been concerned with is one thing-Eugenics. For the uninitiated, eugenics is social engineering through "culling the herd" by means of forced sterilizations, abortions, etc., where only "desirable" parents are allowed to breed. It is elitism taken to its most dire conclusion. Hillary is an advocate and ally of this movement, hence her professed kinship to Sanger. A look at Sanger's history will further illuminate Planned Parenthood's goal...which has little to do with parenthood and everything to do with planning.

I used to do a series of college lectures and one in particular applies to this issue- Designing the Perfect Society. In the course of the lecture I asked the class two questions: Given that not everybody will fit into this perfect society, what do you do with those who don't fit? Second: Who gets to decide? There are no wrong answers...the problem is, there is no right one. However, that has never stopped eugenicists from trying.

Margaret Sanger has always been an elitist. She believed in selective breeding- more accurately, in keeping "undesirables" from having children. This includes blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Irish, Slavs, Poles, Jews and just about anyone else from a Catholic country, or anyone who didn't fit into the East-coast elites coterie. These undesirables, she referred to as "human weeds." The following is a quote from her about African-Americans:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger was arrested for printing and distributing brochures that encouraged minority women to douche with Lysol and began handing them out in the slums of the lower east side. Lysol in those days was very different than it is now. It was much stronger and contained chemicals that caused scarring of the uterine walls causing infertility. Before her court appearance, she took it on the lam and fled to Europe.

While there, she became the darling of European eugenicists who applauded her for her daring and courage. While there Sanger met and became good friends with Dr. Ernst Rudin, the Psychiatrist in charge of Hitler's Medical Experimentation Program. When we think of Eugenics in practice, we always go to Hitler's "Master Race." But Eugenics was not limited to Germany. Switzerland, Austria and most of the Scandinavian countries had forced sterilization programs, as did the United States, where over 15,000 young women were forcibly sterilized. I think it's important to digress for a moment here to say that Eugenics is NOT a science- it is a pseudo-science. It employs such bogus science as phrenology- ascertaining intelligence by the shape of one's head and other  equally questionable "sciences." One goal of the sterilizations was to prevent people of lower intelligence from procreating, according to Sanger: [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. 

The problem with selective breeding is that there are no assurances of what the result of the breeding will produce. For example two intelligent parents will not necessarily produce intelligent offspring. It is likely that intelligent parents will create an environment conducive to learning, but intelligence does not guarantee that that trait will be passed on. Conversely, there is absolutely no data that mental retardation is an inherent trait. Here's an example of the latter (I know this is anecdotal): A young woman from Alabama, 15 years old and considered "slow", who lived with an aunt was seduced and impregnated by a drifter. The baby was taken away and the girl was forcibly sterilized. The baby grew up in an orphanage and became one of the first women to graduate from Harvard Medical School.

After her exile, Sanger returned to the United States and started Planned Parenthood. One further note about Dr. Rudin, Hitler's pet psychiatrist who provided scientific justification for the "Final Solution." He became one of the most frequent contributors of material to Planned Parenthood Magazine. (He also avoided prosecution after the war)

Very little has changed since Planned Parenthood's early days. The victims are the same- minorities. The storefront clinics have moved to high schools for the most part in, you guessed it, minority neighborhoods. Under the guise of affordable healthcare, they continue their genocide with full support from Hillary Clinton (and the American taxpayer who has little to say about it). I may be crazy and not the world's smartest guy, but somehow killing doesn't seem like part of healthcare to me. But, what do I know???

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

The Politics of Social Media

I try to make this blog about issues that concern me and not about me. Although I may express my opinions (I think that's what a blog is after all) I try to make them about things that are relevant to all of us. But today I'm going to stray a bit and relate something that happened to me recently on social media that I believe should cause concern to us all.

I recently was suspended by Facebook for a post that I was supposed to have made. The problem is that the photo in question is one that I haven't used as a meme for a good six months. This picture is saved on my computer and not saved anywhere on Facebook, in my picture albums, or anywhere else. Given that I didn't share it, either Facebook went into my pictures and retrieved it or it took them over six months to be offended by the post. I have to believe it is the former. I read frequently about people who are suspended for political posts that portray liberals in a negative light, or poke fun at groups that are championed by liberals, such as Muslims, Black Lives Matter and other trouble makers. This would indicate to me a profound liberal bias on the part of Facebook and it's "Community Standards" division.

There are also allegations made against Facebook by Conservative, or patriotic groups who say that their pages and/or posts have been removed. Conversely, pages and posts by radical Muslim groups, pro abortion groups and other similar pages are promoted.

This is not to say that all social media has such a bias. My personal experience with Twitter has been very positive and I've not heard of any such allegations made against them. Their posts seem to transcend the political spectrum and all points of view appear welcome. This is just my experience. I will post the photo that got me into trouble and leave it to you to make up your own mind regarding it's content.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

The Teflon Queen

I can't imagine that there are very many undecided left, but if you are here are some things to consider about Hillary. Bear in mind, these are not all criminal activities, but do indicate her character (or profound lack thereof) I'll try to keep them in roughly chronological order:

~ Fired from the Watergate investigation for "Lying and being unethical"

~ While practising law in Arkansas, she got a child rapist off with time served and laughed about it in an interview. She continues to claim to be a "voice for women & children"

~ While First Lady of Arkansas she was abusive to her protection detail- not a crime certainly, but it shows her sense of entitlement and disdain for law enforcement and those whose job it was to protect her.

~ While at the Rose Law Firm she was involved in destroying 115 pages of documents pertaining to the firm's billing practices. Apparently her success here was to become the paradigm for her later activities. To quote an article in The Daily Signal: "Whether a private server room at a Chappaqua, NY home, or the back room at the White House, the moral of the story is this: The Rooms often change but Hillary's predilection for hiding documents never does."

~Insider Trading: in 1978 Hillary was allowed 10 cattle futures in the Commodities Exchange worth $12,000 (She only had $1,000) which she apparently got on credit. She made $6500 overnight and within 10 months her investment had grown to $100.000.

~Whitewater: it's not necessary to go into detail on this, it has been investigated and 15 people were successfully prosecuted on 40 different charges BUT the Teflon Queen skated.

~Travelgate: After arriving at the White House the Clintons got rid the entire Travel Office personnel, many of whom had been there for over 30 years including the manager, Billy Dale, who they charged with a crime. The reason was to replace them with some cronies from Arkansas. However, they could have just fired them, levying criminal charges was unnecessary and unduly cruel. Hillary denied any involvement, but further investigations revealed that she was not only involved but in charge.

~Filegate: The Clintons began collecting FBI background files on those around them, and about any potential enemies or threats. When subpoenaed shredding activities went on late into almost every night. Once again, investigations revealed intimate knowledge and involvement by Hillary.

~Bimbo Eruptions: President Clinton's sexual appetites were no secret and little by little women began to come forward with allegations from unwanted sexual advances, consensual sex and even rape. The champion of women's rights was in charge of discrediting, harassing and often threatening these women to keep them silent. They were portrayed as stalkers, "bimbos," and other equally insulting terms rather than the victims they were. Hillary has been quoted many times saying that the very allegation of rape or sexual impropriety must be taken seriously (except when her husband is involved).

~Mysterious Suicides: It seems that more often than not anyone who crosses the Clintons, or is privy to information regarding their misdeeds ends up dead. Several people who knew about the Mena drug operation shot themselves in the face with shotguns. One man shot himself in the back five times! (Once again, ruled a suicide). The internet is plastered with videos that have the Clinton body count as high as 120. Although this seems a bit high, there are certainly enough to raise some questions. It is necessary to point out that the Clintons are a team...much like "good cop, bad cop." Bill is the good guy, likeable, congenial easy going, etc.. Hillary plays the role of bad guy and she plays it perfectly. She is abrasive, brash, dishonest, cruel, cold and uncaring. She lacks any semblance of empathy or compassion. Hillary is an elitist and completely out of touch with average people, in fact, they make her very uncomfortable.

~Benghazi: While Secretary of State, Hillary was in charge of security at our embassies and diplomatic outposts around the world. She ignored request after request for additional security in Benghazi leading directly to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and 4 members of his security detail, despite their pleas for help. She blamed the attack on a video depicting Muslims in a negative light. She then lied to the families of the slain heroes. Her sole objective was to oust Gadaffi, with no idea of how to fill the vacuum left by his death. This is primarily why ISIS exists.

~E-mails: It appears that Hillary was storing e-mails on an unsecured server (Between 33,000 and 55,000) for a number of months causing an egregious lapse in national security. In covering up her malfeasances she violated a number of laws. Her response was basically, "whoops," I guess mistakes were made. The cover-up includes the head of the FBI and the mainstream media, all of whom are complicit in her misdeeds. Other e-mails show Hillary to be a vicious racist calling young black men predators. She even refers to Democratic voters as "stupid."

~The Clinton Foundation: It has become evident, due to the diligence of Wikileaks and other alternative media sources, that the foundation has been receiving donations from countries whose interests do not coincide with ours. Recently it has been disclosed that Algeria (who has for years been on the terrorist watchlist) donated heavily and the foundation and lo and behold, they are no longer on the list. "Pay for play" seems to be the order of the day with the Clintons. Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta, was instrumental in the State Dept. releasing 20% of our uranium deposits to a Russian company (who also contributed heavily). The foundation raised over $30 billion for Haitian relief after the earthquake, they actually received about 5.7%.

Almost every day more and more examples of Hillary's unfitness to preside over the greatest nation on Earth come forward. Yet people (not many, I think) still support her. I ask myself, what kind of person would vote for someone like her? They must hate America, hate themselves, or be nearly comatose. Women say they will vote for her because she is a woman. Jill Stein is a woman and I wouldn't be too terribly upset if she won. I disagree with her on many points, but I respect her and she's honest. If I were Hillary Clinton, I couldn't look another human being in the face, much less run for public office. I would also drop out of the race if I knew my only constituents were terrorists, corrupt journalists & officials, illegal immigrants and the dead!

Saturday, October 22, 2016

The Crazy Conservative: The Big Short and the Derivatives Market: 2008 Rev...

The Crazy Conservative: The Big Short and the Derivatives Market: 2008 Rev...: After watching The Big Short (great movie, by the way) several friends asked me some questions, because I have some background in economics,...

The Big Short and the Derivatives Market: 2008 Revisited

After watching The Big Short (great movie, by the way) several friends asked me some questions, because I have some background in economics, about what happened. The movie was good about how things came about, but kind of short (no pun intended) on WHY. It was also a bit disingenuous about assessing blame. It is unarguable that the greed of Wall Street and the stupidity/corruption of government were largely to blame, there is ample guilt to go around.

To understand what happened we have to look at the nature of investing. I would caution the reader that if you have a background in econ/investing, you may not want to continue- this is going to be pretty basic stuff. The stock market is basically legalized gambling. In the beginning, if a company wanted to expand, or needed capital for other things, they sold shares of stock. This gave the holder a small piece of the company for which they receive a dividend. Logically, if they sell their shares, if business was good the shares could be sold for a profit and if not, the investor loses- hence, the gambling aspect.

In the 1970's a man named Lewis Ranieri came up with the bright idea of bundling mortgages and selling bonds based on them...they were called Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS's) and they were a GOOD idea. Like they say in the movie "everybody pays their mortgage." The MBS gave birth to what we now know as derivatives- basically betting on things other than the stocks themselves, but associated with them. To digress for a moment: You can "bet" on things like commodities such as coffee, wheat, pork, orange juice and other consumables, as well as precious metals. You can also bet on currencies, for example, that the value of the Euro will be comparably less than the value of the dollar. When you bet against a position this is called "selling short." Hence the title The Big Short. Now back to MBS's  They continued to be a good idea as well as a sound investment until a few things happened.

The first thing occurred in the 1980's. The Wall Street banks say the success of the MBS's and the potential of derivatives and began to hire people with backgrounds in mathematics rather than finance. The wisdom of this would prove questionable as time went on. These mathematical whiz kids were told to "be creative." And they were: the derivative market was off and running. One problem that should be obvious, even to the untrained eye, is when you're dealing with numbers- which have finite but abstract values, it's easy to make numbers on either side of an equation match up by applying simple arithmetic. However, when you're trying to make dollars in an equation match up, they have to come from somewhere. Needless to say, because our lives pretty much depend on dollars, their importance increases exponentially.

The second thing that happened began with a class action discrimination suit brought against Fleet Bank and others in 1995 in which the claimants charged discrimination in lending practices particularly against minorities. The fact is that the "minorities" in question were denied loans/mortgages because they failed to meet the minimum income requirements. Now I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid...if someone comes to me and wants to borrow money and I know that there's absolutely no way they can pay it back, my refusal to make the loan has nothing to do with the fact that they might be a minority. Banks are in the business of making loans. It would be economic suicide to refuse a loan to a customer with the where-with-all to repay it. Conversely, it would be suicide to lend money to someone that cannot repay it...these are called gifts and no bank can stay in business long by gifting money!

The other important development was the deregulation of of banks by the Clinton Administration that practically repealed the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933. In all fairness, this was a bipartisan bill signed by President Clinton- so as I said before there is ample blame to spread around. The upshot of this bill was to remove regulations that differentiated between investment banks and normal banks such as Citibank, or Wells Fargo. In effect what we think of as "regular" banks became the same as investment banks and vice other words the same laws governed both. Our savings were no longer safe.

The banking industry is in business to make money- it goes without saying. When they're painted into a corner and forced to make loans to potentially risky applicants, they're going to look for ways to cut losses and make money. So, they turned to the whiz kids in the derivative "think tanks"...and they proved to be up to the task. They began to bundle riskier and riskier mortgages. These are called Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's) what the movie called "dog shit loans." These are made up of a multitude of mortgages which on the surface look ok. For example, if you take 1000 mortgages in a bundle and look at the average- $75,000 average income/$7500 average yearly mortgage...10% of yearly income=good investment. BUT, averages are deceiving. You may have some loans where the homeowner has an income of $100,000 a year and a mortgage payment of $10,000 yearly on a 30 year fixed rate loan which is 10% and a sound investment. In the same bundle, however, you have a $35,000 yearly income with an annual mortgage payment of 30% of income with a variable rate (sub-prime) loan and red lights go off. So like I said, averages are deceiving. This is why Michael Burry, in the movie, was successful. He read the mortgages, not the averages.

In conclusion: Like I said there is plenty of blame to go around. The movie tries to absolve the "immigrants and poor people." If I have an annual income of $25,000 and somebody tries to sell me a house for $300,000...I know I can't afford it. The realtors were in search of quick profits and the higher the housing price, the higher the profit. The investment banks were trying to make the best of being forced to make risky loans and what they did was reprehensible- greed on steroids. CDO's of CDO' was insanity. I have to believe that they did it purposely- tit-for-tat for being forced into a risky situation, knowing all the while that the taxpayers would be stuck with the bill for their irresponsibility. But the profits were great! And, derivatives are here to stay so hold on to your hat (and money), so we can expect more of the same. As far as government goes, they haven't looked out for us since the Federal Reserve was founded, if not before. I hope this has been at least a little helpful.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Michelle for Prez...A Tongue-in-Cheek Look at Replacing Hillary

I keep seeing on social media about Hillary dropping out of the presidential race for health reasons, or perhaps to avoid prosecution and being replaced by Michelle Obama. Although the probability of this occurring is about as likely as being struck by a meteorite and struck by lightning simultaneously, it does present some intriguing possibilities. Particularly since the only First Lady more divisive than Mrs. Clinton is arguably Michelle Obama.

First of all, what are Michelle's qualifications? She is very adept at complaining, especially about racism. However, the race card has been played so much as late that it has become increasingly tiresome, if not downright annoying! So let's look at her one public policy initiative- the school lunch program. Let's feverently hope that a Michelle administration would have more flavor than her school lunches, which seem about as savory as sawdust!

She does have one other obvious talent: vacationing. This might actually be a blessing in disguise and could very well become the hallmark of her presidency. If only we could afford to keep her on vacation for presumably 8 years, given the trend for re-electing incumbent presidents (Bush Sr. not withstanding). Although history has not been kind to Calvin Coolidge, there is something to be said for his administrative philosophy. Coolidge believed if you leave people alone they will do fine on their own.

One other positive that might come from Michelle as president- given his affinity for the LGBT community, Barack just might prove to be an exemplary First Lady!

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Trump's War With the MSM OR Where Did You Go Woodward & Bernstein

I'm old enough to recall the Watergate Scandal reading The Boston Globe and monitoring the mainstream media (MSM) of the day for further news as the misdeeds of an American president were laid bare for all of America to see. Although I may not have always agreed with the political leanings of the MSM, I did admire their integrity. If not for the intrepid efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the blatant abuses of power of the Nixon administration may well have never have been uncovered. Where are the intrepid journalists of today? More concerned with the antics of the Kardashians than abuses of power in high places it seems.

It could be argued that Nixon was ultimately brought down by 8 1/2 minutes of tape recordings erased by secretary Rosemary Wood. We all waited with baited breath as revelations of corruption were brought to us by the mysterious "Deepthroat" courtesy of Woodward & Bernstein in the Washington Post. As the current election cycle draws to a close, Republican nominee Donald Trump is being hounded by the MSM over alleged sexual misconduct often as old as 30 years. Meanwhile blatant criminal behavior by Hillary Clinton goes for the most part unpublished. Is this the behavior of a "watchdog media?" Mr. Trump has every right to be concerned that the MSM has merely become the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and their left-wing policies.

Deepthroat has become replaced by Julian Assange and his organization, Wikileaks who, no matter how loudly they shout, are ignored by the MSM. Assange's internet has been severed and other impartial news organizations such as RT (Russian Television) have been silenced. RT's bank accounts have been frozen in the UK. Why the attempt to silence the truth? To quote President Obama, "the only people who are afraid of the truth are people with something to hide." (It's very hard to keep a straight face while writing that) The evidence of collusion between the MSM and Democratic Party are too numerous to begin naming, we'll leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that Mr. Trump has ample room for concern.

Far be it from me to give advice to someone of Mr. Trump's ability, however, given that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is a part of the Executive branch: should he win the election, it might be wise to look at licenses given to news organizations. The First Amendment's freedom of the press clause was written so that the press could tell the truth without fear of reprisal, not to obfuscate it.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Clinton Foundation: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

In the midst of allegations of quid pro quo, or what has been characterized as "pay for play" in regard to the Clinton Foundation contributors, it can only be surmised that something untoward has been happening. Employing the old axiom that there is no such thing as a free lunch, a look at who has been contributing (in most cases millions of dollars) it would appear to any unbiased observer that U.S. national interests have been sold down the river. The most prolific contributor has been the Saudi royal family. Given that most Middle Eastern terrorism- including the Sept. 11 attackers- are in large part funded by the Saudis, can it be that candidate Clinton has the security of America in mind? Moreover, the money donated to the foundation is then funneled into Mrs. Clinton's campaign for the presidency making it nothing more than a money-laundering organization. What favors does she owe these donors if she is elected? And, more importantly, how would these obligations affect U.S. foreign policy and our future security? This is only one possible conflict of interest. If one were to look carefully at the donor list, they would be able to draw their own conclusions. We do know that a Russian company, after donating millions, were able to purchase 20% of our uranium (weapons grade) deposits. John Podesta, Hillary's campaign manager, is on the board of a company that benefited directly from the transaction.

This is not to say that all of the donors are dishonest. After the Haitian earthquake, many concerned Americans donated to the foundation in hopes of easing the suffering of the decimated population. Unfortunately, very few of the collected funds made it past the Clinton Foundation's bank account. Before you pull the lever in November, remember this- if you did not contribute heavily to the campaign directly or indirectly through the foundation, it is extremely unlikely that Mrs. Clinton has your best interest at heart. After all...There is no such thing as a free lunch (especially where the Clinton's are concerned)!

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

A thought about Julian Assange's internet being severed: To begin with, there is very little doubt about who is responsible for severing Mr. Assange's internet connection. However, Julian Assange is not Wikileaks, he is the founder, spokesperson and ultimate arbiter of what is published. Given this fact I question the wisdom of making him angry. Wikileaks is a network of bloggers, hackers, whistleblowers, etc. dedicated to exposing corruption at all levels of government. It seems to me that all Mr. Assange has to do is instruct his people, through his lawyers, to submit all e-mails pertaining to unethical and criminal activity by the Clinton/Obama political machine-providing that the submitter is reasonably certain of veracity and authenticity. It is undeniable that Wikileaks has historically been dedicated to accuracy. With Mr. Assange out of the picture, so to speak, it seems foolhardy on the part of Democratic operatives to believe that everyone associated with Wikileaks organization will employ the same level of assiduousness in fact-checking the material. Having said that, we can believe that whatever comes out will be far more accurate than anything that comes out of the mainstream media!