Tardy Thoughts On Mask Mandates

First of all, I truly don't believe wearing cloth masks are in any way effective. If an unlimited supply of of the N95 masks were available, that would be a different story. Or if respirators that were deemed worthy of filtering out the virus were widely used and available, that too would be a different story. 

Back in 2020 wildfires were raging across the PNW, and the Willamette Valley was inundated with smoke, occasionally so thick that the resulting poor visibility made it unsafe to drive, much less be outside. A local news-talk radio station hosted a guest from a prestigious medical teaching university. This doctor specialized in respiratory diseases and functions. The host ask the doctor if the masks everyone was wearing was effective in preventing the inhalation of the fine smoke particulate. The doctor said no, they were not effective, even if wet. While I don't think he intended to do so, the doctor mentioned the size of the smoke particulate, which it turns out was larger than the covid virus. The host didn't catch the faux pas. What the doctor was essentially saying, without actually saying it, was the masks were ineffective against the smoke and also ineffective against the covid virus. 

Why We're On This Road

Many of my fellow true conservatives are stunned by the swiftness in which progressive rot has taken hold in this country. Even your humble author is somewhat taken aback at just how brazenly they have stepped out from the darkened shadows, and I've been warning   this was gonna happen for several years on this little blog-o-mine. 

Tell Me Again

So please, tell me again that the vaccine is all about the science.

Every.

Single.

Day.

We see another example (scroll down just a bit) of how the getting the vaccine has morphed from "This needs to be done" to get us back to "normal" to a mandate "This will be done,... Or else!!!" Penn State University has announced that if you have not been vaccinated or have not provided a negative weekly test result you will been barred from attending classes. REMOTELY. Yes, PSU has decided to become part of the tyrannical edicts and have barred and removed students who don't toe the line, even though they are only doing their course work via computer.

I Wonder...

...if this would work.

I made it clear that through my lawyer I would begin to demand the status of all other employee's health condition in regards to other forms of communicable diseases. We would be demanding information on employee's with aids, hepatitis, flu, STDs, measles, mumps, and so on. My lawyer already had the papers drawn up so I could serve him the first day he tried it and paet of the suit would be to force the company to make immediate policies to section off employees who had any illness they could spread, including the common cold. If they were going to take responsibility in stopping the spread of covid-19 in the building they were now liable for the spread of anything else. 

If this is true then here one more arrow in the quiver we need to this desperate fight we have against the rapidly increasing tyrannical bent of our governments. 

Hat tip to 90 Miles From Tyranny blogspot. 

Starting Over

The other day I had my blogging efforts nearly come to an end.

Since my life requires a lot of time away from home I've taken to doing my blogging either from my phone (like now), or my tablet. My tablet is far and away my preferred method. Better keyboard, larger screen (Hey! I ain't gettin' any younger), better app for 1st and 2nd drafts, and more storage. 

I was in the middle of a blog post when my tablet said I needed to register it. Odd! I had done this step a few years back when I first purchased it. Didn't do it right away. Finished up the 2nd draft of the post, saved, then nighty-night time. The following morning I checked the work schedule when the tablet again indicated I needed to register.

An Exchange With A Snowflake

The other day a friend of mine on Facebook posted his displeasure with PDT decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords. As you  might gather, I fully agree with this decision. This accord was nothing more than a movement of wealth from rich nations (Like the USA) to poor nations (mostly Africa). Interestingly, it wasn't my friend who decided to exchange thoughts with me, but rather his wife. I have known my friends for 10+ years, he was a junior officer I highly respected during my final few years in the service. But I never had the pleasure of meeting his wife other than just a brief meet and greet several years ago.  So I am going to post the exchange in order of posting. I would like your feedback in how I handled the situation.

This first is the original post. It was a response to a news article that my friend posted notifying that PDT has decided to pull the USA from the Paris Climate Accords.

Friend: Oh no!!!! No no no!!!!!!! Damn it!

ME: I'm glad we're done with this scam. Even reasonable folks who believe in hot/wet/cold/dry should view this agreement with disdain. It was nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth from the USA to other countries. Our financial contributions to the agreement far outstripped our "contribution" to global cooling/warming/climate change. The world will wring their hands over us "backing out". But not because the world will end, but because the greedy little jerks aren't gonna get our money.

Not the wife: I couldn't disagree more.

My Friends Wife (MFW): Is this guy serious?? We come in at 17% only 2nd to China at 20% and followed by India, the next highest at only 4%!! WE ARE THE PROBLEM!!! OF COURSE WE SHOULD PAY MORE!! My god I just can't even understand why any American wouldn't agree with joining forces with other countries to try and limit our negative effects of OUR GREED on the planet. You think it is THEIR greed?? Excuse me while I go apologize to my children for the absolute mess we as a nation are leaving them. (if you don't like the simple break down that Wiki provides, feel free to go to the main site for the Paris agreement- I just figure this one has it condensed)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Auto Industry Balks at Increase Mileage Standards

In case you are interested, there are negotiations going on right now that will have an impact on what kind of car you will be driving in the future and the cost of the that car.

The Obama Administration and the auto industry are currently working on vehicle and mileage standards, with the opening “bid” at over 56 mpg by 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board, which has led the nation in setting rough standards, are proposing regulations that would require new U.S. cars and trucks to attain an average as much as 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, roughly double the current level. That would require increase in fuel efficiency of nearly 5 percent a year from 2017 to 2025. (Source: Seattle Times)

…

Automakers say the standard is technically achievable. But they warn it would cost billions of dollars to develop the vehicles, and they express doubt that consumers would accept the smaller, lighter – and in some case, more expensive – cars.

I really have my doubts that folks in the Obama Administration give a dang about whether people will be willing to accept these cars. I think I can say with confidence that the prevalent thinking is “so what, if these are the only cars available, what are the rabble (that would be you and me) going to do, not buy a car?” Most of these people who are making these rules don’t live in the real world. These people have never had to work real jobs, jobs where people need trucks and the ability to haul their work with them. I would guess they have forgotten what it is like to have to haul your family around from school to practices to grandma’s house. You ride around in a limo often enough and you tend to forget that people actually have to drive families from place to place.

US automakers are beginning to stand a little more firm against Obama and his crew. A couple of years ago, when the auto industry was in serious danger of faltering, Obama was able to get increased mpg concessions (35 mpg by 2016) from the “Big 3” (actually, Ford wasn’t on board since they didn’t need the bailouts) as part of the bailout deals. Now that the industry is on a little firmer footing, they are pushing back a little.

Lobbyists are in full swing. Auto companies are seeking a standard at the lower end of the range by the government, citing studies that say meeting stiffer regulation would add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new vehicle and require a significant downsizing of vehicles in all classes. They also want certainly that there will be a single national standard and that California will not be permitted to pursue a tougher standard.

…

Companies could receive credit for using low-polluting air-conditioner refrigerants, building cars that can run mainly on biofuels, putting solar panels to provide cooling powers and other gimmicks. (Source: Seattle Times)

Just so you are aware, that while the links provided will take you to the Seattle Times web page, the linked story actually originated at the ultra-liberal NY Times.  I point this out because there are a few turns of phrases that caught my eye. Things like “other gimmicks” and “Lobbyist in full swing” were purposely put in this story by a writer that I would be willing to bet fully supports these job killing and possibly industry killing mandates.

Congress Tires to Overturn Incandescent "Ban"

In an attempt to roll back government interference in our daily lives Texas Rep Joe Barton (R) introduced a bill that would basically end the ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Sadly, the bill, which needed a super-majority to pass, was defeated in Congress. As expected, the vote pretty much fell along party lines. Not enough democrats switched sides to make this happen. And the likelihood that it would have passed the Senate fell somewhere between no and a snowballs chance in a hot place.

There is a myth running around that Congress banned the incandescent light bulb. This just isn’t true. What Congress did in 2007 was increase energy efficiency standards to a level that the incandescent light bulb cannot attain. Because the incandescent bulb is inefficient, the increase in energy efficiency standards was a de-facto ban.

Slow Erosion of Our Rights

Over the course of the past many years I have come to despise the term “For your own good” or the alternative “for the collective good”. Yesterday, Patrice Lewis of Rural Revolution wrote a column for World Net Daily (as she does every weekend) titled “Serfdom: Coming soon to a country near you”. In her column she highlights how the people of England have slowly had their rights whittled away by a government who thinks they know better (let me rephrase that: by a government who knows they know better).  As she gets deeper into the column she laments how the pinching of rights here in this country could be precursor of things to come. While she doesn’t come right out and say it, I firmly believe many of the restrictions and laws set into place in England and here fall under the banner of “for your own good”.

English history is very long and lustrous. At one time they were the rulers of a very large portion of the known world. India, chunks of China, a large swath of Southwest Asia, Africa, and of course, North America north of the Rio Grande. If one is willing to read about the history of the time they had possession of all these colonies you will see there is a very strong undercurrent of “We need to rule you because we know better”. During the time of the Empire the ruling party was the monarchy, a very select group of people descended from royalty, a very small group of ruling elite.  As the 20th century came to pass and the Empire began to pass, England moved away from the Royals as the ruling class and became a democracy of sorts. One thing did not change though. These people were still part of a small group of elites, educated at places like Oxford and Cambridge. Another thing they had in common with the royals was the very distinct feeling of being much smarter than the general population at large. This new class of elected ruling elite very much felt the masses needed their well-educated guidance to show them the proper way forward. So even though the leadership of the nation had passed from the Royals to the elected officials the mantra of “We need to rule you because we know better” did not change.

Chicago Schools Oversteps

I have a question for the Chicago Public School District. Just who the heck do you think you are? Who are you to tell students and parents they can no longer bring sack lunches to school because you think they aren’t healthy enough? When will you idiots remember who pay your salary? We don’t do you bidding, you do ours. I guess this more than just “a question”.

In the idiotic move of the week (day?), the Chicago Public Schools has banned students from bringing most home packed lunches.  At one school, Claremont Academy Elementary, the school officials confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. I’ll repeat my question; who the heck do these people think they are? This is elitism at it most notorious. These people think because they have some fancy education centered diploma they are smarter than the parents and it their duty to do what is “for their own good”. Man, how I hate that statement.

Obama Elitism -- Confirmed

OK, I think I have had it with the “dude” as our President.  The guy is a jerk, plain and simple. He does not care about folks, unless those folks drive hybrids or EVs. I have never agreed with his politics, he is just too far left for me, but I have tried to do my best (not always succeeding) to give the guy a break. I have tried my best to stay away from the name calling and what-not. He is our President, after all.  At least our previous lefty president, Bubba Clinton, was able to fake it and say things like “I feel your pain”. I’ve tried to understand his stance on wealth re-distribution, but isn’t clear to me why he feels their money is his to what he wants. I’ve tried to understand why he wants to spend $800B to buy up more land for federal control, but keep coming back to the fact that we just don’t have the money. I have tried to understand how someone who has never held a real job or ran a business can consider himself qualified to be a President, but I can’t get past the just mentioned facts.

Then he goes and does something like this (Source: The Wall Street Journal):

The Nanny State of Washington

In previous post and in my about me I have mentioned that I love living in the Pacific Northwest despite the fact the place is crawling with liberals. Here in Washington they tend to practical on a lot of matters. But every once in a while some State Legislator wants to be my mama.

State Representative Laurie has introduced a bill that would limit sodas “to no more than one-fifth the drinks sold by vendors or in vending machines.”  Fried foods and food with added sugar would also be limited.

This is NOT something I like about living in a state that thinks they have to do “what’s good for me”.

Curbing the EPA

Today, I have been in conversation with a couple of other Big Government.com commenters over EPA accountability and whether the EPA should even exist.  In the article that got the conversation started, writer AWR Hawkins feels that recent efforts by the now Republican controlled House to curb the EPA and their wacky ways don’t go far enough:

“Fortunately, Republicans in the new Congress have seen the EPA’s latest power-grab for what it is and have offered two pieces of legislation to curtail the power of the mammoth agency. The bills, one of which was introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and the other by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), bar the EPA ‘from using its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.’ In doing this, the bills literally roll back the clock by taking away powers the EPA has unilaterally given itself during the last 40 years (like the power to regulate CO2 emissions)”

“The only disappointing thing about Barrasso, Inhofe, and Upton are doing is that they don’t go far enough. In other words, it’s not just to rein in the EPA but to abolish it.”

Replacing God, Not A Good Idea

One of my favorite bloggers is a woman who writes about her and her family’s life in rural Idaho. As it says in the “About me” section of her blog, Rural Revolution, she is “a practical constitutional conservative stay-at-home gun-toting, homeschooling cow milking rural-living Christian mom.” She also writes a weekly column for World Net Daily. This week she takes on big government replacing God in our lives. It is well worth a read and she pulls no punches. If you haven’t read her blog or columns, I highly recommend you bookmark her blog. I’ve been a reader for more than two years and have enjoyed reading her take on life.

President Obama and Bill O'Reilly (Part One?)

Sunday night, before the Super Bowl, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly had a 15 minute live sit down with President Obama. I myself didn’t watch it live, too busy preparing items for a Super Bowl party that my family and I were attending.  But I did review it later with the intent of going over the interview afterwards. But I decided to delay when I heard at the end of the interview there was going to be an additional 10 minutes that wouldn’t be shown live.

Here is my take, question by question, answer by answer (paraphrased A LOT for brevity). Before I get started, I know there have been complaints from the left blogs about O’Reilly interrupting President Obama something like 20 times. Get over it. O’Reilly has never liked bullcrap and he can smell it from a mile away. Plus, if he didn’t interrupt, Obama would have stood on the soapbox the entire 15 minutes. Like a lot of Presidents, Obama likes to hear the sound of his own voice. He is probably the worst though.

Q: Is Mubarak going to leave soon?

A: Egypt is not going to go back to what it was. Get all the groups together for an orderly transition.

Internet Privacy Invasion

A few days ago I blogged about the possibility of Congress giving the President an “Internet Kill Switch”. This would give the President, with the advice of the Sec of Homeland Security, the ability to turn off portions of the internet in cases of emergency.  Just like what has happened in Egypt.  This has been a Democrat sponsored bill with a few RINOs thrown in for the appearance of bipartisanship. 

Now the Republicans are the one being stupid.  It seems they want Internet Service Providers (ISP) to record user data for a period of up to two years. This bill is mostly being highlighted as an effort to assist law enforcement agencies track nefarious activities with relation to images of children.

The CATO Institute has more.

Obama Care Ruled Unconstitutional, Part Two (Of Many?)

Florida district court judge, Roger Vinson, has ruled the nation’s health care law unconstitutional due to the inclusion of the ‘individual mandate’ that forces people to purchase insurance.

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate,” wrote Vinson.

He goes on further to say that Congress does have the authority to address the “problems and inequities in our health care system.”

Within the ruling Judge Vinson used President Obama’s own position from the 2008 campaign against him. (link via michellemalkin.com)

“I note that 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.’”

Of course the Department of Justice plans to appeal the ruling, which will more than likely mean the provisions of the health care bill will continue to be put in place until it is, hopefully, struck down in the Supreme Court. (link via michellemalkin.com)

The State of the Union, My Take

Last night President Obama gave his annual SOTU address. It was about an hour long, shorter than in times past. It was a decent speech, with a few good points on which could be used as starting points to getting things back on track. I am concerned he is looking at spending more money, money that we don’t have right now. He will use this as a point during his re-election campaign, either as “look at what I have accomplished” if the Republicans go along with it, or as “See, the Republicans are getting in my way” if they attempt to block Obama’s spending agenda.

One of the things I found most compelling about his speech was he it seemed he was actually acknowledging our “American Exceptionalism”. He has been quoted in the past as saying our exceptionalism is not different than any other country, forgetting that we have twice be the key force in keeping fascism and would-be empires at bay. Last night he said:

“The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation.”

I am not going to discuss much about jobs here since it is clear the guy has not clue how to create jobs without the government getting in the way. He should have hired Brandon Fischer as his new economic advisor, rather than Jeffery Emelt from GE. Fischer is the owner of the small business that dug the tunnel that saved the miners in Chile. This guy knows how to start a business and create jobs.

He spoke about education and our needs to get us back on track. There was a time when were the leader in educating scientist and engineers. No longer. Our high school students used to be in the top five in science and math. Now we don’t even crack the top 20.  Obama seems to think we can change that with his “race to the top” program.

“Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning.”

The thing that intrigues me about this program is that it seems to let the states set the agenda on how to reach the goals. Anything that is given back to the states, especially something like education, is a good idea. Who better than the local and state governments to know what needs to be done in their own areas?  Here is an interesting take on the state of our education, especially the money side.

Internet Security and the Federal Gov't

They just keep chipping away at our freedoms and now they have come out of the closet. Last June, a bill introduced in the Senate was designed to give the President power over the Internet by giving the White House an Internet “Kill Switch”.

Under this bill, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would form a division named the National Center for Cyber-security and Communications (NCCC) that would monitor net traffic and keep an eye open for threats against the Internet. Under the NCCC all federal gov’t internet capabilities would be monitored by the NCCC. But, the bill would also declare “virtually all private communications infrastructure in the US “National Assets” over which the NCCC has vast regulatory power…” If a threat is detected, the Sec of DHS would let the President know what is going on and (s)he would order the offending site or area of the net shut down.

One of the key provisions within the bill is there will be absolutely no judicial review of these actions and the bill is written in such a way that prohibits the courts from reviewing it. There is an appeals avenue but that is to the Sec of DHS and that appeal is final. Kind of like the fox watching the henhouse.

The bill would authorize the DHS to monitor private providers of Internet access and content.  According the Sen Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a co-sponsor of the legislation, this bill would charge the DHS to “provide ‘situational awareness of the security status’ of the portions if the Internet that inside the US – and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm”. (from CNET.com) The article goes on to state:

This idea is a little spooky. It seems the city of Ogden, UT is considering using a blimp with cameras to take a little air out of the crime rate. Sounds a little “Big Brother” to me. Not quite sure where I stand with this type of surveillance. In a perfect world, this would only be used as a means to track down criminals and lead law enforcement types to the people responsible for crimes. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Here are a few examples of abusive use of surveillance camera (Source: notbored.org)

In NYC in Nov 2001 several ATM customers who lost thousands of dollars to thieves who were able to steal their PIN to make unauthorized withdrawals. The thieves used cameras disguised as ATM surveillance cameras to steal the information.

In Tuscaloosa, AL in Sep 2003 a people spending time in an area known as The Strip noticed the traffic camera was moving, paying attention to young women and other people in the area.

NYC (again), Apr 2004: A suicide captured on tape by a surveillance camera was posted on the web.

San Francisco, CA, Apr 2005: A police officer was caught using the SFO International Airport surveillance system to watch women

Somers Point, NJ, May 2007: A graphic fatal car accident captured on a traffic camera has been seen on the Internet

Surveillance cameras are very common is casinos, but usually they are used to catch people who try to cheat while gambling. At a casino in AZ in Jun 2004 the cameras were used to take pictures on women’s breasts.

For the complete list click here to get to the full article at notbored.org.

There was an incident not too long ago in the local ago where the county was using hi-res satellite images to see if people were complying with local building codes.  They were looking for things like sheds, pools and expanded driveways. If there were no records of permits bring issued and paid for, then the homeowner was sent a notice to pay. I am not a fan of this. I own the property and short of doing something illegal (growing pot, damming a stream, or building a rocket), the county should not have any say on what I do with my property.