First tragedy in Minnesota

 It is hard to watch the videos coming out of the tragic incident in Minneapolis, without forming conclusions.  Before you do, I would like to offer some observations on how you can help understand what you are seeing better.  First - the camera sees more than a person.  Your eyes tend to focus on a narrow field of view and a camera takes in a wider point of view.  This is why 2 people can look at the same scene and see two different things.  For example, as a driving instructor and racer,  I noticed in the officer’s video, that the steering wheel was being turned away from the officer, so I saw no intention to hit him.  Now, without being able to interview him, the question is, did he see that or was his focus somewhere else?  Where should his focus have been?  What was his state of mind?  How did the other officers contribute to the situation? Why did they not tell her to turn off the engine?  If so serious,  Did they escalate the situation? These are serious questions that are not easily determined no matter how much you watch a video.

When my son left the military, I spoke to the then Assistant Police Chief about getting him an interview to be a police officer.  He said he would be happy to have him apply, but that he had about 400 applicants for 12 positions at the time.  I asked if this was not a problem, but he said that since he had to make the decision of putting someone on the street with a gun, he would rather be able to pick who he wanted and trusted, rather than just take anyone.  The facts are that over 10,000 new ICE agents have been hired in 2025 with the training requirements cut in some cases by more than 50%.  These agents have been sent out with possibly unrealistic quotas so it should not be a surprise that incidents are occurring.  We are back to failure to plan is planning to fail. With deadly consequences.

This would be funny if not so tragic

Real Math does not lie:

About the National Debt

About the Trade Deficit

About Consumer Debt

About Productivity

We are in a storm of battling conditions.  AI is affecting the job market in a negative way, even if it is only in the robots and computer programs that at the same time are increasing productivity.  Consumer sentiment is inching up but still way down from the end of the Biden Administration. Consumers do not like chaos. Businesses do not like chaos.  Sixty-two percent of Americans have some money in stocks but the top 10% of households own about 87% to 93% of all stocks.  So most Americans are not benefiting from the high stock prices.  

Hmmm - Lets hear that again?

  After the 2025 elections, one of the Fox News commentators said that Mamdani is in trouble as he only got 50.4% of the vote and therefore should not assume he has a mandate.

He is absolutely right, I am looking at mandate numbers of 66% or more to even Think you might have a mandate.

BTW - even though Trump got 72% of the electoral votes in 2024, he only got 49.8% of the actual votes.

And you can think about it this way - with Curtis Sliwa getting less than 8% of the votes, that basically means Democrats got 92% of the vote. Of course we cannot tell who voted for Cuomo after the President told every one to, or did they vote on their own....

Pot meet Kettle

 "Pulte's focus on Cook's mortgage documentation is just the latest in a series of similar accusations against high-ranking Democrats, such as Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

He added in a second post, "If you commit mortgage fraud in America, we will come after you, no matter who you are." "

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-removing-federal-reserve-governor-lisa-cook-rcna227138

"Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered Trump to pay the fee for massively inflating the value of the Trump Organization's properties in order to secure favorable loans.

In the lengthy ruling released on Thursday, judges on the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division stated that while Trump was liable for the fraud, the fine of nearly half a billion dollars was excessive and probably violated constitutional protections against severe punishment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y09q1zgg8o

England swings like a pendulum do

Update:

The panel was disbanded due to a lawsuit:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/climate/trump-dissolves-contrarian-group

Oh dear.

=========================================================

I read an article about a new report  -

"A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse"  
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate Report to U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright
July 23, 2025 

This is what I wrote to the author of the article:

--------------------
Whatever happened to fact checking, disclaimers and backing up your claims with footnotes?

The five scientists - the Climate Working Group:

John Christy, Ph.D.

Judith Curry, Ph.D.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.

Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.

Roy Spencer, Ph.D

Are all either climate change deniers or at the least climate change skeptics.

If I was to clone Michael Mann five times and have "them" write a report, you would dismiss it out of hand - as you should.

Stacking the Group does not make it more accurate.

I do believe there is room for debate but remember this: 

A pendulum is not a mode of transportation.

At best you just end up in the same place.

------------------

Rewriting History 8/8/2025

 Andy Biggs was on Fox talking about the redistricting in Texas.  He said that the only reason Democrats were in positions in Texas was BECAUSE of gerrymandering!  ?%!?

From November 2017:

“Even the way the electoral map is drawn has been an obstacle for Democrats, explained Kronberg.

“There’s currently a redistricting case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and nobody knows how that’s going to play itself out. If they’re forced to actually draw lines that reflect communities of interest, then it’s entirely possible that incrementally we can see the state start to turn purple,” said Kronberg.”

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/demise-of-the-democrats-how-the-party-lost-texas-and-how-it-can-win-it-back/269-487318326

The problem with the Internet is that you can go back and check these things.  How many people watching that will believe the Democrats did something underhanded, when it has been the Republicans all along…  and Ironic it was Reagan who said “Trust, but verify…”.

Tariffs and Prices

Having spent much of my life in parts management and with setting prices for companies, let me give an overview of tariffs and prices:

Basically, I calculated prices by taking the actual price paid for goods, add the hard shipping costs (UPS, Air or Sea and local delivery) and then add Customs and Duties (C&D). This is my “landed” or “dock” cost. The C&D are usually determined by INCO terms.  The INCO terms state if the seller or the buyer is paying what costs of a transaction.  After adding all the above up and taking into account stocking and warehousing costs, I would have a multiplier to come up with my selling price.  The multiplier established the cost of sale, and I had to take into account things like competition, total markup, warehouse and dealer prices and of course my companies procedures.

If a product had an unusual tariff, such as an anti-dumping surcharge, I would have to figure that into my price or look elsewhere for a product without the tariff.

In today’s world we have a very stable supply chain. There may be alternate sources for a product, but they usually come from the same country and it takes months, if not years, to establish a new manufacturing plant.

So what about the new tariffs?  Say we have a product with a cost of 100 dollars ($100.) and a 20% tariff.  So the product would still cost  $100, but I would have a $20 per item cost added in my C&D.  Now this does not mean my cost or my selling price would go up 20%,  but it would have an impact.

What about the supplier paying the tariff?  The only Inco term normally where this happens is DDP.  It would make more sense for the supplier to lower the price of the good.  So maybe the part becomes $90. With a tariff of $18.00. My cost would then be $108, better than $120.  Unless the supplier has a incredible markup in his product, this is not likely to happen.  He still has to pay his expenses and his workers.

What if I eat the tariff?  Well then my company makes less profit and there is less money for raises or research and development.  I am not a tax expert, but a large company might be able to claim these costs against profit.  A small company may not be able to write off these costs.

Now, why has the tariff costs not hit hard yet?  Some companies work on FIFO (First in-first out) and some on LIFO (last in - first out). Some work on weighted averages.  FIFO dampens the effect of increasing costs, weighted averages dampens all fluctuations.  Other things that can cause prices to change are currency fluctuations, shipping costs (remember the fuel surcharges)  amongst others.  Companies using LIFO might have wildly swinging prices, based on the daily cost of materials.  Once you pick and accounting system, you cannot just change at a moments whim.  This would of course affect your profits and of course your taxes so it is discouraged in the Fiscal year.

So if the proposed tariffs stay in effect, you will see prices rise until they stabilize.  This might take 6 months to a year, once new goods make it to market.  The bottom line is that if all that happens is that the companies pay the tariffs, and no business moves to American manufacturers* then the tariff is just an addition tax paid by the consumer.

*For the tariff to lower prices on goods, an American manufacturer would have to be able to produce the product at less than the tariff price.  Right now no manufacture would invest in a new factory, knowing that if the tariff might be removed, they would be right back at the same disadvantage as before.

An Elephant never forgets

The funny thing about the Internet is that it never forgets.

One quick trick is to use Google’s search a specific time period to hone in on the original stories.

Take the accusations of President Obama made by Tulsi Gabbard.

First - she releases a report - done on September 18, 2020.  First - who was the DNI director at the time?  Oh it was John Radcliffe.  What was he doing at the time? - he was releasing unsubstantiated information to affect the election 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/10/1/21497176/john-ratcliffe-russia-intelligence-hillary-clinton-donald-trump

Even the NY Post at that time was reporting that Obama knew Clinton was trying to pin something on Trump, but even they had to admit:

“Ratcliffe said the intelligence community was unable to confirm the validity of the claim that Clinton cooked up the scandal. He wrote the information was derived from “Russian intelligence analysis ” that could have been an “exaggeration or fabrication.” Sources told Politico that members of both parties on the Senate Intelligence Committee previously discounted the claim as unsupported by fact.”

So a guy who tries to smear the opposing party, approves a report that smears the other party and it is a surprise why???

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

“Finding #1: The Bulk of ICA Judgments on Russia's Election Operations Were Sound and Employed Proper Analytic Tradecraft

The majority found most ICA judgments on Russia's election activities to be well reasoned, consistent with observed Russian actions, properly documented, and-particularly on the cyber intrusion sections-employed appropriate caveats on sources and identified assumptions. The key ICA judgments that the Majority found

credible are summarized below: 

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US liberal democratic order.

Russian intelligence services, acting on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin, launched conventional

and cyber influence operations-notably by leaking politically sensitive emails obtained from computer intrusions during the 2016 election.

Putin's principal motivations in these influence operations were to advance Moscow's longstanding desire to

undermine faith in US democracy, and to weaken from the start what the Russians considered to be an inevitable Clinton presidencу. 

Putin held back leaking some compromising material to use against the expected Clinton Administration after

they took office.

The operations officers at CIA and NSA who produced the raw intelligence cited in the ICA showed great professionalism. CIA Collection Management Officers (CMOs) in particular, did an excellent job of employing detailed context statements that spelled-out evidentiary problems affecting the reliability of raw intelligence.

The drafters of ICA did not accurately cite the most critical context statements (addressed in detail later in this study) but the original raw reports were nonetheless professionally prepared.”

So we can put these facts to bed forever.

The problem was a debate over whether Putin “aspired” to have Trump win.  Well if he did not want Clinton to win, was he expecting a 3rd party victory?  

Sounds like a pretty weak concept to pin your hopes on.  When Trump said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,”… well, he did say that.  As I have said in my blog at that time, I did not expect there to be a smoking gun linking Trump to Putin.  But he was playing a dangerous game in appearing to do just that.

Maybe this is interesting reading 10 years gone:

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-and-putin-two-liars-separated-at-birth/

What some people forget

The Republicans want to get rid of PBS and impose Tariffs

 They totally forget "Firing Line" 

From Wikipedia: 

"Firing Line is an American public affairs television show. It first ran from 1966 to 1999, with conservative author and columnist William F. Buckley Jr. as host. It was relaunched in 2018 with Margaret Hoover as host. With 1,504 episodes over 33 years under Buckley, Firing Line was the longest-running public affairs show with a single host in television history. The program featured many influential public figures in the United States and won an Emmy Award in 1969."

When they want to Tariff every country, they forget Ronald Reagan:

"As perhaps you've heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan's inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors. Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I'll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I've often said: Our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So, next week I'll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this, because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring."

Tax WHO?

 Here is a case where we might HAVE to tax the rich in order to keep things going.

Back when this country started, we were pretty much self-sufficient. You grew your own food, made your own clothes, built your own house. What you didn’t have, you traded for. Time passes and with science and technology - the two main drivers of civilization - things become specialized.

Now trading became more important than being self-sufficient. This led to the importance of money, credit cards, loans, etc. Home industries like manufacturing were farmed out, and brain power overtook physical work. This led to inequality as hard work could not make up for technological increase in productivity. So even if jobs were to come back to America, they would fall into two possibilities. First would be low paying menial jobs. Second would be high paying technology jobs. As the income shifts from the majority to the minority, the saying often attributed to Al Capone comes to mind. “Why do you rob banks? Because that is where the money is.”

Taxing the average person will become less and less productive as their average salary falls. So their transferred share of the country’s wealth will end up in the pocket of others. These people’s “fair share” will include those they make their money off of. That is why it was proposed that when a machine replaces 5 workers; the machine, or the person who profits from the machine, would owe the tax normally paid by those 5 workers.

Spending is a separate issue and needs to be analyzed differently. However, I do think there is a link. As the majority of people see their relative income shrink, then they demand more services from the government. If that increased spending basically comes out of their own pockets in increased taxes, it does not seem like a really smart move.

This idea was in part from a video I watched - you might enjoy it and find this channel interesting.

How Cheap TVs Made Healthcare Unaffordable!

Math is Hard

 "These countries around the world have had 70 years to do the right thing by the American people and they have chosen not to. They have ripped off American workers. They have taken our jobs overseas. The president is putting an end to that yesterday."   - Karoline Leavitt. https://trt.global/world/article/a91f07174f64

This got me because I will turn 70 this year, so the math was pretty simple.  70 years ago is 1955, and not sure what countries she is talking about - most countries were still recovering from WWII.  China, Japan and Germany were pretty messed up and England and France were just getting their act together.  If anything they were all still buying stuff from the US, and but we were pretty happy just building stuff for the growing baby-boom generation.  

What she might have said was about 50 years ago, when Nixon opened up relationships with China - but we still were not doing much about trade then.

She could have said it was around 40 years ago when Reagan and the Republicans started changing the tax laws to benefit corporations, and companies started to move production overseas to increase profits.  Had to keep those new 401K plans growing somehow....

She could have said 30 years ago, when the Democrats wanted to use targeted tariffs against China and were shot down by the Republicans.  

I am also trying to find where countries like Vietnam ripped off American workers when the companies exporting from there are American companies who left China in the last 20 years.  We thought then that was a good thing.  Least we could do for a country we bombed that is still digging up explosives today.

The reason the stock market is down is that it is not China, or other countries that are necessarily the problem, when Apple, Tesla and GM all built factories over there to take advantage of the Chinese market and of course pass some savings on to US customers, but also the fact that if these sales drop, then the profit that would have come back to America is also cut off…..

Anyway, this just goes to prove that Karoline does not have a good grasp of math…

"Blimey! This redistribution of wealth Is trickier than I thought!"  Dennis Moore - Monty Python

originally posted to my Facebook account 4/5/2025

Is this a shell game?

 Okay - A prediction - or maybe some homework.

In a perfect world you buy a stock and it goes up.  You sell the stock to someone and it goes up again.  They sell the stock and again it goes up.  In this “staircase” model, no one loses, it is just a function of time.  

Now when a stock goes down, two things could have happened.  First, the person bought at a lower price and they have lost value but not principal.  However, for the price to have gone up, someone must have bought at that price - they are losing money.  There are winners and losers.  Now, if you have the ability to hang on to the stock and not be forced to sell, IF the stock goes back up, you could regain those losses and maybe even make money, or at least minimize the losses.  But if you are drawing on that money, say to fund your retirement, they are definite losses.

So here is the homework.  When these people sell at a loss, who is buying?  I see two possible choices.  Before we look into them, these people have to have spare money.  Buying on margin in this situation can be a dangerous gamble.  So we assume the people (or companies) are well funded.  I think this leaves two entities.  First the companies themselves, buying back their own stock.  Second will be large capital investment companies, or wealthy individuals who can afford to take a loss, or use it as a write off.  Thus I see wealth being consolidated from the general population (mostly 401Ks) back to a smaller group of individuals and companies.  Watch who buys.

That and giving them a potential tax break, will actually do just the opposite of the proposed result of the tariffs.  It will not bring jobs back to the US, it will hurt many people’s retirement funding (the immediate sacrifice) yet continue to expand the national debt, resulting in even more pain for our children and our grandchildren….. 

Two sides of the same coin.

Those who watch

 In 1978 Congress established the position of Inspector General (IG) in Public Law 94-505.

The President appoints the Inspector General, but the IG REPORTS to Congress.

To prevent political removal or reassigning of an IG, Congress established some guardrails:

Removal Procedure:

The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part:

"An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed
from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall
communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any
such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional
committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal."

"The 30-day notice requirement was established under the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409), and the requirement that notice include a “substantive rationale” was added by the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A, of P.L. 117-263)."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11546

https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ409/PLAW-110publ409.pdf

Now, what constitutes breaking the law under this act?  Well - not following the procedure!

If the President does not follow this procedure, it could be considered an impeachable act.

It would probably go to the Supreme Court to rule on the original law, but considering that this was not brought up before the action, the "beg forgiveness rather that ask permission" argument I don't think would fly.

Rubber Stamp anyone

 White House Warns of 'Consequences' for Republicans Who Don't Get Behind Trump Cabinet Nominees"

International Business Times

"The White House has issued a stark warning to Senate Republicans to fully support Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, emphasizing political repercussions for any dissent."

"The White House is doubling down on its pressure campaign, warning Republican senators of political fallout if they fail to back the president's picks."

Biden Joins the Club: Each of the Previous Five Presidents Had an Early Cabinet Nominee Withdraw

Center for Presidential Transition

"Biden becomes the sixth president in a row who has notched at least one unsuccessful Cabinet-level nomination by the end of their first two months in office. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump each had one, while President Barack Obama had three."

The words are "to advise and consent", which is understood to enable a balance of power.

While it is customary for the Senate to approve cabinet picks, it is not a guarantee.

The fact that the advise and consent can occur before or after the nomination comes before the Senate, implies a working relation ship to get the best people in office.

Making threats against elected politicians doing their constitutional duty, would seem like an impeachable offence.  Hmmmm....

Doesn't anyone know about Tariffs?

 Yes, I do.  I have been involved in the Import/Export business for over 40 years, starting with my work with the Skip Barber Racing School in 1982.  We imported race cars and parts from Ireland and England.

Later, through 3 European companies, Mannesmann Demag, Arburg and Wittmann, I was involved in the importation of machines and parts for injection molding.  

I worked with many freight forwarders and brokers.  Even working in the domestic elevator industry as a parts supplier, we had dealings in England, and Australia.

So when someone tells you the company exporting goods pays the tariffs - they do not know what they are talking about.

https://incodocs.com/blog/incoterms-2020-explained-the-complete-guide/

Look at the chart above.  Notice the last line on the left column.  That is where the sender (exporter) pays the tariff.  Notice this is only one out of eleven situations, and the least likely.

In all the ten other cases, the receiver (importer) pays the tariff and it goes to the government.  In this case it is a TAX.  

Now the purpose is in theory, to make imported goods more expensive than domestic goods.  This works when the exporting country is dumping (selling deliberately at a low price to buy market share) or has an extreme manufacturing cost advantage compared to the domestic manufacturers.  

The problem that arises in many cases, is that the price to the consumer goes up and the quality of the domestic product goes down, as they do not have to be competitive.

Are tariffs useful?  Yes, they are a tool in the economy, but more like a precision screwdriver than a sledgehammer.  If you need a sledgehammer than sanctions are more the political solution, but this is usually a last case scenario.

Even President McKinley was moving away from tariffs at what turned out to be the end of his presidency.  You might want to read his last speech to understand.

More people, More people, More people

 The new Trump administration seems to be focused on getting immigrants out of America.  

Trump immigration crackdown: Denaturalization just a drop in the bucket

One interesting line in the article:

"While denaturalizations are unlikely to have a demographic impact by themselves, some economists fear reduced immigration could slow the broader economy."

Why is this important?  Well the US birthrate is below 2.1, what is considered the replacement number to keep a population from declining.  Right now, with the number of baby boomers living longer and with the immigrants - our population is growing.  This needs to happen to keep the economy from stagnating.

While Baby Boomers have a fair amount of money - many lost during the last recession and most are on fixed incomes - their money is tied up in their houses.  At some point this will trickle down, unless eaten up by health expenses.

So we need more young people willing to buy and borrow in order to grow the economy.

Or else we need to build and export - the problem is if we get too greedy with tariffs, then we will be subject to retaliatory tariffs.  Oops.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blimey! This redistribution of wealth Is trickier than I thought!"  Dennis Moore - Monty Python

And now for something completely different

 If this last election proved one thing, it is challenging a person's beliefs no longer works.

I have come to the conclusion after studying conspiracy theorists that providing them with facts will not change their mind.  Besides a personal experience (if we could shoot flat earthers into space) it is now very hard to change someone's mind.

So here is a different method.

Do not criticize, belittle, or contradict.  

Just ask:        "Why"

Ask why and then ask them to defend their position.

They probably cannot.  

Then ask "What if" questions.

What if this or that part of their argument is proven false, would they change their mind.

If they say no, then there is no further use arguing with them.  They are locked in their ways.

Fortunately, there are people who might be willing to change. 

That is the only hope we have.

Well What do they say now?

 “They’ve already started cheating, 2,600 votes. Every vote was written by the same person. It must be a coincidence,” he said at a rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania, last Tuesday.

Donald Trump dances as he leaves a campaign rally in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, 30 October 30, 2024: he has his fists raised and people are holding red Make America Great Again placards behind him

Republicans preparing to reject US election result if Trump loses, warn strategists

Nationally, a key pillar of Republicans’ claims has been the falsehood that non-citizens are voting and could sway the election. Elon Musk, the billionaire who is a key Trump ally in the campaign, has played a significant role in amplifying this claim. Several studies have shown that non-citizen voting is extremely rare.

“If the fraud theme of 2020 was: ‘Covid is allowing ineligible people to vote or ballots to be manipulated,’ the 2024 theme seems to be ‘illegals are voting,’ and that fits in very much with the kind of nativist anti-immigrant language coming from the top of the Republican ticket,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview in October.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/trump-2024-election-subversion-explainer

So I guess in the end, they were lying.  Well what do they say now?

Well which is it? Man-made or not man-made?

 JULIE GREEN: This is exactly one of the things that the Lord had talked about. I have to get out which prophecy it was. I think it was the one from yesterday or Monday. He was talking about how this is the same thing as Maui. This is all on purpose. This is all done for complete devastation. And one of the things that He actually had on there and I have to — I'll look it up, of which one it was because I have several of them pulled up here again. But He said it was blatant. It was deliberate. What happened in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and those really hard areas, those areas were hit for a specific reason. And again, this is all man-made. All of the stuff, we know they can modify weather, and they're doing this on purpose. This is another form — and I hate to say this, but it's so true. This is what the Lord was saying. It's another form of election interference. This is another form to weaken people, to destroy people more, it’s more to get us to the point where we are so broken spiritually, physically, financially that we will not fight them back. This is another tactic and a strategy of war.   (2024)

"If you believe in God, then intellectually, you cannot believe in man-made global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he cannot create."  Rush Limbaugh 2013

There is a big difference between controlling the environment and controlling the weather.  Is sitting in a air conditioned room, controlling the weather?  Cloud seeding to create rain, assumes there are clouds holding moisture first.  You cannot create moisture where there is none.  So man has very limited effect on the weather.  So how then can man affect the climate?  Well one man cannot, 10 men cannot.  But 8 billion people working unknowingly together can give it a kick.  Give it a kick over 300 odd years and it might kick back.  Pour grease down you sink drain and not much happens.  Do this for ten years and it is time for the plumber.  

So no we cannot direct hurricanes.  One person can start a wildfire - but one started has no control over it.  An atomic bomb strategically placed, might start an earthquake, but the damage by the bomb would probably be worse.  

Ironically misinformation and disinformation can have a bigger effect on an election, and is much cheaper that trying to change the weather.  

DeSantis also seemed to equate hurricane-related conspiracy theories — which authorities say are causing real harm — with scientists pointing out that human activity drives climate change. When asked for his response to the disinformation swirling around the hurricanes, the governor joked: “Look, if I could control the weather, I would do, you know, 78 and sunny year-round.” 

Well - at least he is consistent.

---------------------------------------------

Julie Green - https://www.mediamatters.org/hurricanes/lara-and-eric-trump-backed-prophet-claims-god-told-her-hurricanes-were-man-made-and-they   (+many more)

Rush Limbaugh: https://geochristian.com/2013/10/24/rush-is-wrong/ (+ many more)

Ron Desantis - https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/ron-desantis-climate-change-hurricane-milton-florida-rcna175047

Words of Jefferson

 In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Peter Carr, probably a protégé of Jefferson.  He was the son of Jefferson's sister.

Her wrote the following:

 It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp

Ah, but only if the current political establishment would take this to heart.

But how do we know when a politician is lying (the old cliche not withstanding)?

First - anything that gets you upset or angry, be suspicious of.  These statements are usually exaggerations or embellishments of items which have just a slight bit of fact.

Second - be aware of projection - this is somewhat new but traces its origination way back - the pot calling the kettle black.  Someone accuses the other of a crime the first has committed.

Third - watch for amplification and spread.  A saying attributed to Mark Twain, but more probably from Johnathan Swift, is the idea that a lie spreads so fast that the truth is always lagging behind.  If everyone is sending it to you or you are being bombarded with a statement - be wary.

How to you be sure a statement is true or false?  In the past you would have to go to the library or find a person with  personal connection.  Today, you need to go to the Internet - set the search parameters BEFORE the statement was released, and do some digging.  I have found that most of the "just found out" items, have already been found and discussed and rarely rise to the level of outrage warranted.

Fact checking sites are useful, but don't just read their summaries - look at their sources. If they don't have sources and references - move on.   If something is important to you - do the research