Saturday, November 18, 2017

Tom Fitton on Al Franken, Election Integrity, Clinton Emails Discovered,...

As part of the public, I am interested, Mr. Sessions.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

NOAA Facts Forum Parts 8-14 The Q and A

My apologies both for the delay in posting the remaining videos and for the lack of captioning.

 These videos are the questions that the public in attendance at this meeting had for the speakers.

In spite of the fact that this effort has been ongoing for a number of years, many of these people - including this blogger - had only found out about the proposal to create a National Marine Sanctuary out of the part of Lake Michigan that are adjacent to this section of shoreline(at least for now - who knows how much of Lake Michigan NOAA wants under it's jurisdiction? ) in March of this year.

That is not due to a lack of effort on the part of NOAA and etc, but to the fact that most people don't have the time to keep tabs on the machinations of federal government agencies. Most have other, more immediate interests - until those interests are directly threatened. And that is where we are today.

The waters of  Lake Michigan are shared with the state of Michigan. The Wisconsin half belongs to the people of Wisconsin. The federal government wants to control it and this is one way they can do that. By tempting the people of Wisconsin to give up responsibility for our half of the lake to NOAA for this "good" cause - even though we are already preserving those shipwrecks. We don't need to give up our sovereignty of our half of Lake Michigan to do that.

Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. You cannot spend one without giving up the other.

Those who rose to question the proposal all made good points. This blogger, however, opposes the establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary on the constitutional principle that the federal government is constitutionally limited to owning/exercising sovereign control over forts, ports and ten square miles. The federal government is not to exercise ownership like control over the states. As mentioned earlier in this series states like Nevada have given up their sovereignty over so much of their land to the federal government that it is laughable to even call them a state.

From Article 1, Section 8, this is what the US Constitution says:
" To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" 

There is already a Coast Guard station in Sheboygan. It is across the street from where this meeting was held. 

"And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.

2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.

3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee."~ 1 Kings 21:1-3

NOAA fact forum - Part 7 (1 and 2)

My apologies both for the delay in posting the remaining videos and for the lack of captioning. The speaker here is Sheboygan Mayor Vandersteen. The camera's battery ran out midway through his presentation so there are two videos for this speaker. My apologies also for the shakiness of the video.

Perhaps I am cynical, but I doubt that tourism will greatly increase for a marine sanctuary when Sheboygan couldn't even manage to keep the Dairyland Surf Classic going. They couldn't find someone else to take on this event when it's originators were ready to call it quits or to start another freshwater surfing event in Sheboygan, but scores of divers and tourists are going to come around to read about shipwrecks? I say read about shipwrecks because most will not dive them. The very features of the lake that preserve these wrecks discourage diving to see them. Would they even be visible from a glass bottomed boat? Those who will brave the cold and dark to dive such wrecks are well able to do so already. We don't need federal interference to assure that. I don't think this will bring in tourists in an amount sufficient to pay for the costs down the road.

And the costs down the road, Mayor Vandersteen, are what our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for through the nose. The federal debt of this nation is already astronomical. How is such a project even sustainable? Oh wait - I'm sure the costs will be covered by the draconian fines imposed by NOAA for breaking any of IT'S rules and regulations - rules and regulations created by NOAA - not the citizens of Wisconsin, and enforced by NOAA's own law enforcement agency. That is NOT what this author wishes to leave to her grandchildren.

The bottom line is that no one is saying the wrecks should not be preserved. We all agree that they are historically significant and a part of what makes this community special. What we are disagreeing on is whether or not we can take care of them ourselves or whether we wish to forgo our own responsibility in the matter and burden the rest of the nation with those costs.

Which will inevitably lead to the federal government restricting the constitutionally established (In the State Constitution)rights of the citizenry. Because if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk to go with it. And if you give the federal government responsibility that you should shoulder yourself, they will take the freedoms that accompany those responsibilities. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin and you cannot give away only one side of that coin.

We can take care of our own property, sir. It would be ethically and morally wrong to burden the rest of the nation with this. It would be wrong to add to the debt burden our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are already facing thanks to such expensive government programs. And it would be wrong to deprive our children of the freedoms guaranteed them as citizens of Wisconsin because we lacked the strength of character to shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining those wrecks ourselves. The tourism and commerce you expect whether they materialize or not are an argument from greed and possibly sloth and the citizens of Wisconsin are better than that - or at least this author thinks they are.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March of 2017 to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

"He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live."~ Prov 15:27

Saturday, November 4, 2017


Oh nay, nay Mr. Whittle. The left LOVES democracy. They want democracy because then they can use it vote their fellows (or at least their fellow citizens who disagree with them) out of liberty, property and life. They are claiming that the electoral college is a subversion of democracy. They have been pushing that popular vote bill throughout the nation to deprive the rural areas of their votes in the name of democracy.
Democracy is mob rule which is a stepping stone to anarchy and oligarchy and tyranny.
The USA is a republic and I know you know this and that you, unlike so many these days knows the difference.
That is why in the early days of the nation - or so I have read - the question put to Congress was often "How stands the republic?".

I wish every public official and schoolteacher would be required to wear a collar that would shock them every time they uttered the words "our democracy" or the like. It is a shameful dumbing down of the citizenry that so few even think this is wrong.

And you see that the sane people understood that the system is supposed to be able to withstand 4 years of any idiot in the POTUS' office, but these people say we must crash the system - but they cleverly do not say the goal of crashing the system is to replace it with theirs.

Tom Fitton on FBI Recusal Scandal in Clinton Investigation, DOJ & Clinto...

Friday, November 3, 2017

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

The Best Pro-Abortion Argument EVER, Debunked | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep....

Just in case you needed an answer, although the question isn't that difficult and if no one has ever answered it in ten years, it must be because the guy posing the scenario lives in an echo chamber.

JW President Tom Fitton: 'We are being stonewalled' over FBI Involvement...

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

JW Presents: A Discussion on the Awan Brothers IT Scandal w/ Congression...

Ayn Rand: The Author People Love to Hate

This author found Atlas Shrugged to be inspiring and appalling in equal measure. Inspiring in the message that the individual has a right to do for themselves and to wish to earn a profit and to do so without a lot of nanny statery. Appalling in the notion that the underlying Judeo-Christian morals, values and ethics that make such capitalism work - and work stupendously - may be discarded in favor of whatever works for the individual - which is just moral relativity - which is the other extreme position and does not work in the long run any better than nanny statery..

NOAA facts forum - part 6 - Kris Sarri

This is Kris Sarri - President/CEO, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation She appears to be here to confirm the idea that money, in the form of grants, will grace any community that accepts a national marine sanctuary.
She is soft spoken, and polite, even gracious. In fact all of the panelists were very polite people.

At about the 5 minute mark, Ms. Sarri says "These are public waters, these are America's waters."No madam, these are not America's waters. They belong, legally, morally and ethically to the people of the state of Wisconsin, just as the natural resources of the other states belong to the peoples of those states. Do I get to say I shouldn't have to pay state income tax like the people of Texas because they have oil to offset their expenses as a state? No. Why not? Because the oil in Texas,(as does the gold in Alaska, the fertile soil in Oklahoma or the pastures of the Dakotas) belongs to the people of that state. These are our waters here in Wisconsin and ours, too, is the responsibility of caring for them and any historic, cultural, etc  heritage they may contain. We have been taking care of them since the state was founded and we are perfectly capable of continuing to do so. With the assistance of your foundation or without it.

Some may say, no, that the federal government owns all the water, that there are regulations and agencies and statutes saying so. But what does the U S Constitution say? Does it mention ownership of resources like land, oil, gold, or water? Article 1, Section 8, when outlining the duties of Congress, says? "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"  

This clearly indicates that any state land (aside from D.C.)desired by the federal government must be"
1. used for the specific purpose of "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
2. ceded to the federal government by the state legislatures and
3 purchased by the federal government. 

That indicates that the federal government does not own the land or resources of the states, nor may it do so except for very specific purposes. That is has done so - particularly in the west (At 84.9% federal "ownership" why is Nevada even regarded as a state at this point?) - is an egregious lapse of vigilance on the part of the citizenry and should be corrected ASAP. And this is the main reason why this author opposes the sanctuary.

The federal government has become incrementally more powerful and usually through the impetus of greed.This author is hoping that tactic will not work here.

Ms. Sarri, at one point, insists that the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is not affiliated with NOAA. Perhaps this is an attempt to present her view as that of an unbiased outsider.
 Their website says:

" The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is the national non-profit partner for the National Marine Sanctuary System and its chief advocate." If there were no agency creating national marine sanctuaries, would there be a national marine sanctuary foundation? She is clearly comfortable advocating for NOAA in her segment. The NOAA and NMSF websites even use the same shade of blue as an accent color. So whether they are officially affiliated or not, they are clearly very cozy with one another and Ms. Sarri cannot be considered to be unbiased based on the claim of no official affiliation.

Ms Sarri says "this is not a federal power grab" repeatedly. What this author heard was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.". NOAA has it's own law enforcement agency. So, if a citizen of Wisconsin does something that is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, but that violates one of NOAA's regulations - which law enforcement agency will have jurisdiction? Because, logically, if the state of Wisconsin is maintaining control and jurisdiction over our waters, shouldn't it be under our laws and with our law enforcement agencies if this isn't a federal power grab? Are there any readers who think that will be the case?

She then goes on to indicate that everybody didn't agree with Monterey or Thunder Bay and that things are going just wonderfully anyway. (Even though the "old top down" approach was so egregious? ) What this author heard was:"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated". 

As mentioned before, Wisconsin is perfectly capable of taking care of it's own heritage and resources. This is not a question of whether such resources are valuable or whether or not the people of this state wish to preserve our heritage, but whether we can and will do so without submitting to federal agencies and their not-officially-affiliated "friends".

Some may say "Why not take free money and let someone else deal with the hassles of preserving those wrecks and things?" And the answer is TANSTAAFL. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If you give up the responsibility for something, you give up the freedom to enjoy it at the same time. This author hopes that the citizens of the state of Wisconsin will prefer to keep the responsibility and the freedom that goes with it.  
Apologies for the shakiness of the video and special apologies for the many errors in the closed captioning. This one was a bit of a challenge.
This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox." ~ Prov 14:4

American Pravda, NYT Part I – Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connec...

The purification of sin in the ancient Temple - Holy of Holies. Insight ...

Monday, October 9, 2017

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Thursday, October 5, 2017

On Watch Live: Exposing The Awan Brothers/DNC I.T. Scandal (feat. Luke R...

The right to bear arms isn’t up for debate

Came across this excellent article and thought I would share with a tip o the topper to Andrew Klavan:

"When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such."
Read the rest here.

General Dunford ISI has terrorist connections

NOAA fact forum - Part 5 - Russ Green

One day my mother came home from work and said, "I told them today that I am not going to any more of the staff"input" meetings." When asked why she had made that decision, she said" They say they want our input in order to craft policies and procedures, but it is clear that they have already decided what they are doing and are just asking us for input because some management book told them we would be happier if we thought we were having an effect on the policies that are being implemented. That's a waste of my time."

That is what came to mind as Mr. Green was speaking. There was a definite air of "we are doing this to make you feel like you have some say in the process, but it will happen whether you like it or not."

In one of the earlier video descriptions there was a thought experiment. Here is another one: Should the federal government's interest in gaining control over such a large body of fresh water (or any other resource that may be in or under Lake Michigan) become pressing, how could we prevent them from designating every piece of driftwood, driftglass and rusting metal as being "of historical significance" and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of NOAA?

As with some of the other speakers, the unspoken word "yet" could have been added to many of the denials that NOAA would end up with sole control and jurisdiction over the entire area of the designated marine sanctuary. And given the expansion of the Thunder Bay sanctuary, there are no guarantees. Even were we to believe all the top down nonsense and even if it were true, without a change of the pertinent rules and regulations imposed on marine sanctuaries by NOAA there is no way to prevent them from becoming tyrannical under a change of personnel or administrations.

Wisconsin is better off taking care of it's own.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

"14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.

15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

16 And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them." ~ Joshua 9:14-16

Monday, October 2, 2017


On the day after the terrible shooting in Las Vegas, this author offers her condolences to the friends and families of all involved. This is world’s largest free-flying American flag this evening, flying at half staff to let the families know that their nation mourns with them. 
"14 The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief."
 ~ Job 24:14

NOAA facts forum - part 4 - Mike Friis

This is Mike Friis, the Program Manager and Public Access Coordinator, Wetland Protection and Land Use Planning Coordinator, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, WI He is very earnest and makes it sound as though he is representing the State of WI. He is working for what sounds like a state agency- right? He says he is accountable to the state government. However this press release from 2016 clearly states that the coastal management program is federally funded. Hmmmm. The press release is talking about a 2.3 million dollar grant. A grant from where? A grant from whom?.

"The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program balances natural resource protection and sustainable
economic development along Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts. The program awards federal funds from the Office for Coastal Management in the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to local governments and other entities for innovative coastal initiatives."(emphasis mine)

Efforts have been made by those who oppose the sanctuary to convince Governor Walker to oppose it as well. He has refused. On August 10 of this year, Governor Walker made this announcement:
"Governor Scott Walker announced today that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has awarded Wisconsin a three-year $840,000 Coastal Resilience Grant to help Lake Michigan communities and property owners in Southeastern Wisconsin reduce damages from coastal hazards and sustain the operation of their coastal economic assets. The grant entitled “Improving Economic Security in Coastal Wisconsin” will be awarded to the Wisconsin Department of Administration’s Wisconsin Coastal Management Program."

One can understand the Governor's wish to be fiscally responsible and to avoid burdening the taxpayers of the state but again, the pockets of the taxpayers are not bottomless and this nation is trillions of dollars in debt. Why should the people of the entire nation be on the hook for protecting our resources? And, if we cannot, and if these resources are so important to the nation as a whole then why should the state be required to relinquish any of our sovereignty to obtain federal funds? Are we not American citizens paying into those coffers as well as our own?
The question of whether or not this should even be a pressing need in a nation so far in debt should also be addressed at some point. Yes, this is a wonderful idea, but is it a responsible use of tax dollars?

 This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."~ Matt 6:24

Friday, September 29, 2017

Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 6: The Rapid Growth of Islam

NOAA facts forum - part 3 - Stephen D Kroll

Stephen D. Kroll - Diver and Member of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Alpena, MI - speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.

Mr. Kroll, while sincere, is currently working with NOAA. He also seems to sincerely believe that those who oppose this will and should change and nothing else is reasonable. That, in itself is an unreasonable position.

He, and some of the other speakers, say that NOAA has changed from a top down organization to a bottom up agency. Yet they do not bring out any rule/regulation changes to show that the agency will no longer have the authority to impose unreasonable fines or incrementally take over property adjacent to the sanctuary.

(Some current maximum NOAA imposed fines - for those who may be interested:
"B. Criteria for Determining Penalty and Permit Sanction Initial Base Penalty and Permit Sanction – two factors are considered in determining the initial base penalty and permit sanction amount (collectively, the “initial base penalty”): 
(1) the gravity of the prohibited act that was committed; and (2) the alleged violator’s degree of culpability, based on an assessment of the alleged violator’s mental culpability in committing the violation. These two factors constitute the seriousness of the violation.3 Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 2431, et seq). 

The current maximum statutory civil penalties permitted by the seven statutes most commonly enforced by NOAA are as follows: 
Magnuson-Stevens Act – $140,000 per violation 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act – $140,000 per violation 
Endangered Species Act – $32,500 per violation (knowing violations - endangered species) 
Marine Mammal Protection Act – $11,000 per violation 
Lacey Act – $11,000 per violation 
Northern Pacific Halibut Act – $200,000 per violation 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act – $11,000 per violation

And these are, by NOAA's own document - the MOST commonly enforced statutes.)

Nor do they bring out any regulatory changes in the agency that specifically state that the state's constitution (And any other laws of the state)  will overrule any and all rules and regulations of the agency that may trouble the citizens or restrict their constitutional rights in a way that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the laws of the state of Wisconsin.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

My apologies for the shakiness of the video.

"18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." ~ John 3:18-21

The Secret to Success

Answering Islam 11: Where Does the Bible Call Jesus the Son of God?

UNDERCOVER IN ANTIFA: Their Tactics and Media Support Exposed!

Right Angle - Disgraceful - 09/28/17

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Funeral Service for Nabeel Qureshi

NOAA facts forum - part 3 - Stephen D Kroll

This is Stephen D. Kroll - Diver and Member of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Alpena, MI - speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.

Mr. Kroll, while sincere, is currently working with NOAA . He also seems to sincerely believe that those who oppose this will and should change and nothing else is reasonable. That, in itself is an unreasonable position.

As for his dimes and grants and whatever, this nation is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. We have unfunded liabilities that could reach to the moon.There are no more dimes to be gathered. And the implication that Thunder Bay is better than Wisconsin because they have a marine sanctuary - really? Are we twelve years old playing "my state is better than your state" now? Attempting to invoke a competitive reaction? What else have you got? Because adults, who have to pay the bills know that competitive reactions cost too much when sober consideration of the issues involved is necessary.

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here.

My apologies for the shakiness of the video.

" Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" ~ 1 Peter 5:8

Monday, September 25, 2017

Does Israel Discriminate Against Arabs?

America Under Siege: Antifa

It is your duty as an American to be an informed citizen. Inform yourselves.

NOAA facts forum - part 2 - John Broihahn

This is John Broihahn, State Archaeologist, Historic Preservation and Public History, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI Speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.

Mr. Broihahn is in favor of the state of Wisconsin gaining access to the technology and resources of NOAA. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find out if there are more wrecks. I am curious myself. I don't know anyone who doesn't value and learn from history, but from a logic standpoint - everything has historical significance.  However, one might think that the resources of a federal government agency such as NOAA could be requested for such a task without granting them any jurisdiction over the resources of the state of WI.

Here is a a thought exercise: What happens if/when they do find more wrecks - or debris that could be counted as having historical significance? How large will NOAA's jurisdiction over the shoreline become in such a case?

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

My apologies for the shakiness of the video.

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." ~ Deut 6:7

Tom Fitton discusses Court Battle on Clinton Draft Indictment, Obama Wir...

Friday, September 22, 2017

NOAA Facts Forum at the Sheboygan Yacht Club -Part 1 Leslie Kohler introduction

This is the first part of a meeting by NOAA to, ostensibly, quell the natural suspicion arising out of the proposal to allow the federal government, in the form of NOAA, to take over jurisdiction of the section of Lake Michigan along Kewanee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan and Ozaukee counties by designating it to be a huge marine sanctuary. The title of the meeting - labeling it as a "facts forum" struck this author as a subtle attempt to belittle those who oppose the establishment of the sanctuary, but perhaps it was not intended that way.

This author, along with others opposes this move, although the reasons are a bit more philosophical than those presented by the very good questions that you will see in the final videos - those covering in the Q and A session at the end of the meeting. This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

There will be several more videos and while there are many noble sentiments expressed, there is much that is left out as to how the stated goals would be achieved  and how the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin may be protected from any incremental encroachment by this agency which has employed unreasonable fines and Memorandums of Understand as unbreakable law to achieve it's ends in the past.

All that said, please do listen with an open mind and a critical ear both for what is said and for what is implied by the speakers to follow. Please also excuse the video quality. There is much shaking as I did not have a tripod or even a monopod to steady my hand because I had been told that no video recording would be allowed except by a specific outfit.

When I arrived, (I had my camera with me as I was taking photos of people who were holding signs at various points around Sheboygan to raise awareness of the issue.) I was told that the objection was due to space limitations and not to prevent journalists -citizen or otherwise from recording it independently. That was not what the e-mail exchange implied and I can post a screen shot of that if anyone is interested.

"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." ~ Ecc 4:1

The Romance of Redemption - Session 2 - Chuck Missler - Body Builders #4

Right Angle - A Little Advice For Kim Jong Un - 09/21/17

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Western solution to Islamic terror, drug the unbleiever into submission

Benny Friedman - Toda! The Music Video - בני פרידמן | תודה

Just sharing a bit of cheer for the day.

Stossel: The Best Part of the Constitution

The preamble - because it establishes the purpose of the document, the 2nd -  because it recognizes the right of the people to defend the rest of it, and  the 9th - because it recognizes the impossibility of the document to list all the self evident rights of the people and requires that the citizenry exercise themselves enough to understand the terms "self-evident" and "unalienable" and to defend them.


Hot Mic - Litigating The Violent Left - 09/14/17

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Friday, September 8, 2017

The Love of God - Session 2 - Ron Matsen - Body Builders #2

What Mark Zuckerberg won’t tell you about the risks of AI

Once again, why aren't manufacturers producing laptops, phones, tablets/desktops with hard "off" switches?
And why aren't consumers demanding them?
Privacy is power.

Tatjana festerling in Paris Sept 2 2017

Europe Is Killing Itself

Even an atheist gets it.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

BREAKING: JW President Tom Fitton's Statement on DACA

The USA has no right to kidnap the children of other nations who could benefit from their talents and industry.

Monday, September 4, 2017

Answering Islam 10: How Does the Quran View Women?

Why Is Health Insurance so Complicated?

How about tort reform so that malpractice insurance and class action suits aren't driving up costs for the providers, portability so that insurers have competition and price lists so consumers know what they are spending before they have to buy it?

Speaking in California September 8th-11th (2017)

Friday, September 1, 2017

Where can you buy cryptocurrencies?

Since Bitcoin seems to be doing very well, some may be asking where may I purchase Bitcoin or another cryptocurrrency for my portfolio? Here is a link to a site called Coinbase that seems fairly easy to use.    Yes, The author of this blog will get bitcoin if anyone uses this link to purchase one hundred dollars or more of their offerings of cryptocurrency using that link. But you are also free to do a search and find the site without the referral link. This author does have an account with Coinbase.

This is not meant as a sales pitch, merely as one possible starting point for those who might have been thinking about purchasing some cryptocurrency in light of the recent rise.

"11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him." ~ Luke 19:11-26

If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Secularism, Pluralism and Privitization pt 2

This one starts at about 58 seconds in.

Secularism, Pluralism and Privatization

Liar, Liar Teach My Child?

It is the duty of parents - as well as their self evident and unalienable right - to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The states, individually, have decided to provide a public education system in order to facilitate the education of their citizens. It is simply that - one possible way to educate the children of that state. It was not intended to be compulsory, but only to provide an option to those families who could not afford a private school or tutor or who felt unable to educate their own children and because the government recognized the value of having educated citizens.

There is an unspoken but logical compact between the state and the parents regarding that option.  That unspoken compact is that the state, in providing a public education, will do so in a manner that does not harm the students. In the ordinary course of events, that should be self evident. No parent in their right minds would allow someone to deliberately harm their children - right? The state has broken the unspoken compact between itself and parents.

We have come to a time when the state cares more for political correctness and appearances than it does about your child. The SCOTUS ruling in TLO vs New Jersy in 1985 was only an incremental step in conditioning parents to accept bad behavior on the part of the government in their state provided schools. That ruling allowed teachers and school officials to interrogate children about crimes  - for which they may be prosecuted - without notifying parents. There are other posts on this site and on others regarding the ins and outs of that outrage.

And now, the state is saying that it must be allowed to teach your children to disregard behaviors that indicate mental instability in order to cater to the few individuals that suffer from gender dysphoria disorder. (Current stats, which are quite likely to change with such encouragement stand at about .02 % of the population.)

 If a young girl goes into a ladies room and sees a man in there, she is likely to become apprehensive and go to find a trusted adult. That is a healthy reaction to aberrant behavior. That is a reaction that keeps people safe from those whose mental illness may cause them to act violently. Forcing children to ignore or suppress that natural and healthy reaction to aberrant behavior is child abuse and it creates a child who will be unlikely to do what is most natural to protect themselves - even into adulthood - from those who exhibit aberrant behaviors in other circumstances.

Disregarding the extreme discomfort and harmful conditioning that sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with opposite sex schoolmates will cause for those not affected with gender dysphoria disorder is directly harming the majority of the children with whom the public school system has been entrusted.

In addition, what does it do to the youngest children when a teacher - someone who they have been told to trust - lies to them about whether someone is a boy or a girl? If they cannot be trusted to tell such a basic truth, then how can a child logically trust them about anything else? Will teachers be allowed to say this student is biologically a girl but they have a mental disorder called gender dysphoria that makes them think they are a boy, so we are all going to be "helpful" by encouraging them in their mental illness? Or, as seems more likely considering some of the teacher guidance that is coming out, will they be forced to say "this is a boy" now or be fired?

Add to that harm the reminder that teenagers are, well, teenagers, and that the whole self identifying gender movement allows them to switch their gender from day to day or even minute to minute. How much power should they have over their teachers? The power to get them fired for referring to them as a boy/girl/it? This is a guarantee of sexual assault cases to come and worse.

If the sufferers of gender dysphoria require bathrooms and changing facilities other than those assigned to them by their biological sex, then the school districts are on the hook to provide separate and single changing/bathroom areas for them. Because there is no other option that does not harm the  children. It is also the only way to protect the afflicted from other sufferers - because you cannot have the "trans" boys sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with "trans" girls either. But the courts, when asked, decided that the schools must allow these children to use the bathroom of their choice in disregard of the harm it will cause to the other children. (This was the decision of the federal appeals court. The SCOTUS vacated that decision upon reviewing the changes to federal policy of President Trump, but they refused to hear the case during this term which means it will come up again in a few years.)

The very idea that a court of any level could say that the majority of our children MUST be harmed, because the sufferers of a mental disorder don't want to use separate facilities provided for them in an effort to maintain the safety and conscience of all the students, is appalling.

The fact is that the public school system is outdated, inefficient and expensive. We have other alternatives even in the public realm. On-line schools have become well accepted and provide a challenging curriculum with more input from parents. Homeschooling has been shown to produce responsible students well able to succeed in life or college. It is time, when the government is willing to deliberately harm the majority of the children with whom they have been entrusted, to leave that system.

What we allow is what will continue. The compact has been broken and the purveyors of political correctness in high places will continue to use our children as political pawns to fundamentally transform what they were put into office to maintain.

 Stop sending your children to public schools that harm them. Stop electing people to office who will not prevent such harm. And stop approving more funding for a system that is deliberately harming children. These are your children. This is your responsibility and your duty as a parent.

"1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:1-2

"1  And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:1-8