From Uncategorized

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE LAST DEBATE?

The short answer: Not a lot.  I doubt that any votes have been changed, and most people’s minds are made up.  Of course, CNN says Biden won, and Fox says Trump won.  I did get more out of the exchange mainly because the discussion was more understandable with just one person talking vs. with the first debate when three people were talking at the same time. 

Nevertheless, there were a few important points that did make it to the surface, but just barely. You had to be fairly sophisticated politically to catch them. It went over most people’s heads, though. They were still appalled with another Trump lie about coyotes dragging children across the border. (True story)

The first point was the discussion of fracking. This is a technique for releasing gas and oil from shale rock.  Millions of years ago, organisms from microscopic life, plants, and a few dinosaurs were buried deep in the earth’s crust.  It formed a layer of rock with embedded organic material that, under pressure, was transformed into gas and oil in tiny droplets trapped in shale. We owe the technique to the Civil War when Colonel Edward Roberts noted that when artillery was detonated near wells, they started to produce more. Now a shaft is drilled into the shale up to 3000 meters down.  Then a horizontal shaft is drilled.  It is through this horizontal shaft that the shale is infused with pressurized water, sand, and chemicals. We have employed this technique commercially since the 1940s.  It was not widely used until recently when the recovery to cost numbers made sense economically.  The controversy comes in because the recovered chemical water mixture is toxic and can contaminate drinking water wells.  Also, there is a risk of generating earthquakes and releasing the greenhouse gas, methane, during the drilling process.

Both Biden and Harris have spoken out against fracking on many occasions documented on tape.  Biden has denied this until the last debate when he has reversed his position and supports it now, presumably because he wants the votes of Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, who depend on this technique, and makes us the world’s top producer of gas and oil. But the crucial line from Biden that nullifies all that fracking talk is that he “will transition the country away from oil,” and 2035 is not that far off! If we indeed transition away from oil in the next 15 years, this will have devastating consequences on the economy, not only in the three main producers of oil, Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania but the entire country.  Renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels.  It currently supplies less than 10% of the needed energy, and prospects to increase that are not very good.  Germany has tried to do so for 12 years and has gotten to 54%, at the tremendous expense of $1.3 Trillion initially plus thirty-eight Billion yearly, and still buys wood from us to make up the difference.  Germans pay three times more for electricity than we do.  If in 15 years oil will be relegated to the trash bin, we shall need our bicycles, and the voters of those oil and gas producing states should re-evaluate their position on Biden.

The race issue backfired on Biden with the attempt at a joke, “Abraham Lincoln here is one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history.” It gave Trump the chance to bring out the difference between him and Biden on the race issue.  Trump has been very supportive of the black population.  Trump generated massive cash infusions for black institutions of higher learning to the tune of 1 billion for minority-serving institutions. The low black unemployment rates did not hurt either.  Trump made Biden admit that his 1994 Crime Bill during the Clinton administration and sponsored by Biden was a mistake. It overly criminalized Black Americans.  One of the more egregious policies that came from that was, the longer incarceration times of “crack cocaine” possession than powder cocaine.  Blacks preferred “crack” and that put thousands of young black men in prison for a long time. Trump pushed the question by pointing out that Biden and Obama were in charge for eight years and did nothing to rectify “this mistake.” Biden’s excuse was that the Republican Congress kept him from fixing it.  Not so fast, Joe! Congress was Democrat-run from 2009 to 2011.   Biden had three years and did absolutely nothing!

I am surprised that the Hunter Biden scandal has not reached deafening proportions.  When the entire family is accused of being involved in “shakedown operations” against several countries just like the “Gambino crime family” in New York, inquiring minds want to know. The Biden answer, “Hunter did nothing unethical.” That is not reassuring especially coming from an old politician.  We deserve more. The mass media does not talk about it, claiming it is unsubstantiated. NPR has come out saying that it was a waste of time to do so.   It is not Hunter I am concerned about.  I would hate to see another impeachment if it turns out that Joe was involved in peddling influence. The country does not deserve or need it! When the FBI is investigating Hunter’s laptop for money laundering, when two of his business partners are in jail, when at least two whistleblowers are out testifying to the veracity of the emails, it needs to be addressed, and addressed before the election. The media needs to do its job!

Immigration was a Trump “trump.” When Biden brought up the cages that housed the migrant children, he shamed Biden because it was Biden and Obama that built those cages.  “ Who built the cages?” Trump said several times.  The problem turns out to be a lot more complicated and sad.  The children in the cages are going to stay in the USA, the promised land. When the parents, who were not successful in getting into the U.S. or sent the children by themselves, are found, and some 480 of 540 parents have been found, they refuse to take them back because they think their children will have a better life here.  That was the plan! If all migrants with children will be admitted without resistance, the resultant human wave will drown us.

Covid-19 was a wash, I thought.  Biden claimed unnecessary deaths that Trump answered with Biden’s early accusations that Trump was hysterically racist in closing our borders.  Which is it? Was he hysterically racist, or did he not act soon enough? We have mixed messages here on multiple levels. The “science” said don’t wear masks, then did, a 180˚ to now wear masks. The “science” said, “we will have no problems in the U.S.,” then there were problems.  The Governors were given the task to handle each state as each state had different issues and problems. The bottom line is that we are about the same as the rest of the world, despite all the theories of delay and keeping the virus’ virulence secret. So far, no country can claim a definitively “better way.”  I cannot see that different approaches have yielded spectacular results anywhere. Our outcome data still show us to be better than most, but not as good as some. The whole of Europe’s death numbers as of October 23, 2020, is 257,522,  to ours that is reported at 229,317.  To get a more accurate perspective, I refer you to the Johns Hopkins website and look at deaths per 100,000. But the big picture is still not much different.  Who did what, when, where, and how didn’t have much impact, with some glaring exceptions that can be pointed out in most countries.

We have ten days to go! I am anxious to get it over and done with! (don’t mind my ending with a preposition). In Churchill’s words, “That is the kind of nonsense, up with which I shall not put!”  

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!

If Democrats take the White House and maintain control of Congress, Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi — both with Bay Area roots — would be first and second in line for the presidency. (Courtesy of Getty Images)

If you believe the polls, they predict a landslide for the Biden / Harris ticket.  But how long will Biden last?

If you have paid any attention, you will note that Biden is slipping.  I don’t mean to disparage him, but it is quite obvious that 77-year-old Biden, soon to be 78, is not as sharp as he once was.  That is not unusual.   It happens to the best of us, and I know from personal experience.  He will be the oldest President this nation has ever had.  Nancy Pelosi has other plans.  She is dusting off the 25th Amendment for the occasion.  Biden will not be able to run the country without considerable help.  That will get untenable very soon, and his V.P., Kamala Harris, will likely replace him as President with the mandate of the 25th Amendment.  The 25th Amendment gives Congress the ability to remove the President from office for health reasons. The logical vice president will be the next in the hierarchical lineup, Nancy Pelosi.

Harris was unable to even place in the Democratic lineup during the Democratic presidential debates that she joined on September 12, 2019, and then withdrew her candidacy after the 5th debate.  This will be the only way to the Presidency for her.

She has positions that are controversial and usually defined down party lines. She co-sponsored Bernie Sanders bill of Medicare for All, supports Late-Term Abortions, and mandatory “buyback” of so-called assault weapons, is pro Sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and supports the Green New Deal.  She opposed the Trump tax cuts and would support increasing the number of Supreme Court Judges (Court Packing), although has refused to admit that.  She is opposed to the border wall and wants to decriminalize illegal immigration.  She has said that an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. She favors changing dietary recommendations to increase vegetarian foods and decrease meat, which adds to our greenhouse gases like methane. Presumably, we will not have to worry about her defunding the  police as she is proud and often mentions that she was California’s “top cop.” But then again, she may go with her party’s undeniable support of BLM and Antifa and throw the cops under the bus. 

Most of her positions are problematic for me. I wrote an essay on Medicare for All that I would suggest you read it on my website gusiwasiuk.com which details why that would be a disaster.  Just cost alone makes it unaffordable.  Then there are quality issues that come with a single-payer system.

Late-Term Abortions are an issue of human decency that I classify with infanticide and cannibalism.  Late-Term Abortion kills a fetus that could survive outside the mother as an independent human being.  The mother had several months to decide about terminating the pregnancy in the first trimester. This is settled law, “Stare decisis,” as stated by most of the Supreme Court justices, including the newest nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. Kamala’s defense, which she gave at the last debate, was that she would always support a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body.

Winston Churchill is often given credit for this quote, “If you are not liberal at age 20, you have no heart, and if you are not conservative at age 40, you have no brain!” It is, however, more likely attributable to John Adams. I am not proud that in my late 20’s I knew a lot about late-term abortions. I wish I didn’t, but I know more than any of you.  This little bundle of humanity moved and cried and felt pain. Those of you that support late-term abortions really should watch one.  Even the most cold-hearted person would be revolted. The truth is you must actively kill the fetus.  How do you actually do it? It is not that easy. Drowning seemed to be the best, cheapest, and most certain way.  As I witnessed this, I came to the conclusion that this is Murder! Murder is not civilized, and it is just wrong and evil! Once the fetus is viable, has a brain, moves its limbs, cries, and withdraws from pain, it is just too late, regardless of what women’s rights are. In my book, there is no right to kill another human being that can exist independently except in self-defense. At what stage viability is reached is not clearly defined. Most believe it to be between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. Civil law, Common Law, Christian/Jewish Law, Islamic Law, and the traditional Law system of most countries of the world even consider suicide illegal.  You don’t have a right to take your own life, much less the life of someone else, even if you are a woman. Late-Term Abortions are not something a decent and civilized society should tolerate, just like we don’t accept infanticide or cannibalism.

Mandatory buyback of guns is a euphemism for confiscation.  The Constitution should not be changed for a number of reasons. Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart. We should listen to their wisdom. I refer you to another one of my essays, “The Right to Bear Arms,” that goes into those reasons.

Immigration is a subject near and dear to my heart, as I, too, am an immigrant.  I came to the U.S. in 1954 from Austria.  In 1952 my father who saw the end of the American occupation as a clear sign of losing his job as a physician with the U.S. army because Austria was going to become an independent country, and Austria had denied my father a job previously, as they only employed physicians that were native Austrians. He applied for immigration to the United States. Truman, who was still friends with Joseph Stalin at that time, would not allow our immigration because my father was under death penalty orders in the USSR for being an enemy of the people.  He had been Romania’s Chief of Public Health. He had ignored orders from Moscow by vaccinating children that he had been ordered not to vaccinate and other public health measures, such as providing clean drinking water to the elderly to combat a Cholera epidemic that Moscow did not deem necessary.  That makes you an enemy of the people! Socialism is so wise and compassionate – hopefully, you will not find this out for yourself!

We really had no choice in leaving Europe, and since we could not go to the U.S. we were going to emigrate to Africa.  The Gold Coast (now Ghana) wanted doctors, and we were packed to go.  A miracle happened. Dwight David Eisenhower became President and changed the rules. Enemies of Socialism in the USSR could now come to the USA.  We changed airline tickets and landed at La Guardia airport, New York, on a very hot July in 1954.  I became a U.S. citizen on May 1, 1961.

Immigration must be under the control of the country receiving immigrants.  The receiving country must screen people to be additions to the population.  They cannot be criminals, terrorists, or people that will become a burden to the welfare system. People that will add to the country in terms of work ethic, culture, economy, and citizenship are desirable.  Recently the world has had turbulent events. South American Socialist revolutions have caused people to leave their native land as my family did. The Middle East has also had wars and human tragedy that encouraged migration.  With that migration came people that did not fit the definition of beneficial additions to our society, people that wanted to hurt us – just remember 9/11.  Germany and France got some of those folks as well.  We cannot let that happen.  The borders must be secure to let in people we want to let in, and keep out those that would harm us.  Is that not what all countries do? (President) Kamala Harris would change that.  She would welcome the huddled masses, and never even look at their credentials. I refer you to another one of my essays, The Wall.

Socialists think they are smarter than anyone else. They think they have the answer to global warming.   They think we have 12 years to turn the world around before irreversible events happen that are… well irreversible.  The science is settled, so says Al Gore, even our Governor Gavin Newsom.  Radical environmentalism and the advisers to Biden: Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib under the wise tutelage of self-anointed Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, have given us the “Green New Deal.” Biden has cleverly taken the main tenents of that deal and coined his own climate deal that smacks of plagiarism, something with which he is very familiar, The Biden Deal.  It would eliminate fossil fuels by 2035.  It is too complicated to give you the details of why this would destroy us more than the Covid virus has, but it surely will.  I would recommend a book to you, written by an environmentalist that explains in 400 pages why the science is not settled and why we have time, and why environmental alarmism hurts us all, Apocalypse Never, by Michael Shellenberger, on the Best Seller List. I would also recommend my essays, Why the Green New Deal Will not Work, and The Only Possible Solution, just a bit shorter of a read but not on the bestseller list yet.

As bad as you believe things to be now, think about a Harris / Pelosi administration carefully before you vote. Just in case, buy a bicycle, you will need it, and eat all the steak you can before then!

WHY I AM NOT VOTING FOR “THE MAN” DONALD TRUMP

But I am voting against trained Marxists and Democratic Socialists.

I am voting against riots, looting, and arson.

I am voting for law and order.

I am voting for secure borders.

I am voting against urine and feces in the streets, like in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco.

I am voting against influence peddling to Ukraine and China by the Biden family.

I am voting for the Star Spangled Banner, both the flag and the song.

I am voting for the support and existence of Israel, and all Jews should be ashamed not to do likewise.

I am voting for the President who brought more stability to the Middle East than any other President by brokering the peace treaty between the UAE and Israel.

I am voting for the Freedom of Speech without censorship, which we already see from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

I am voting for the right to bear arms.

I am voting against the “Green New Deal” and its plagiarized version the “Biden Deal.”

I am voting for the individual who has eliminated more unnecessarily, costly, and bureaucratic regulations that have damaged industry, agriculture, and energy production.

I am voting for the President that made us energy independent.

I am voting against late-term abortions, also called partial-birth abortions of near-term infants.      Kamala says a woman controls her body and has the right to drown another human being in formaldehyde (a common way it is done).

I am voting for the American way of life to stay as it is.

I am voting for the country to which I immigrated.

I am voting for a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

I am voting for the Republican Candidate for President– Donald Trump

Trump is the man with whom we have the best chance to have this kind of country.  Biden does not offer that.  This is not a high school popularity contest where we choose the guy or gal with the greatest personality (paraphrased from Dr. James Dobson, founder of  Family Institute). I am aware of Trump’s flaws, and he may not be the right man at a different time in history, but he is the best man for the job at this time.  He is a leader. He believes in America. He believes in the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the greatness we have achieved.  We are not bad, but good.  We have given humanity an example of the best government, the best lifestyle, the best civilization that has ever existed on this earth.

Joe Biden is a nice grandfatherly man, “simpatico” with one word.  But Democrats, including Joe, have been hijacked by the radical left, who try to convince us we are bad.  We are systemically racist.  That means it is baked into the system.  You are racist. Everything is racist. We are consumed by hate. We need to accept our responsibility for slavery, which they say is still our fault.  We need to pay reparations.  There is less racism in America than anywhere globally, and it is steadily decreasing, more black businesses, more black professionals, teachers, doctors, engineers, and college graduates. The black intelligentsia such as Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Candice Owens, and others, including Morgan Freeman, reject “systemic racism.”

If you believe we are all racists, that we need to atone for all our evils, that we need to embrace and welcome all newcomers to our shores, including criminals. We need to tear down the wall. If you believe we need to get rid of all fossil fuels by 2035, and replace them with solar and wind, and if you believe that the family unit is no longer the standard of our way of life and should be replaced by multicultural philosophy of communal living, then you need to vote for good old Joe, who, by the way, will likely not last one year and be replaced by Kamala Harris.  So you need to get used to her and her advisers, the SQUAD AND SELF-ADMITTED SOCIALIST – BERNIE SANDERS. Once that conversion takes place, it will not be reversible!

We are supposedly voracious polluters and SUV addicts that destroy the planet, and this destruction which will be irreversible in 12 years, so they say.  The renewables have been unable to supply more than 10% of the energy we need, and the wise environmentalists are absolutely against the only form of energy that could very safely substitute for gas and oil because environmentalists predict epic risks.  Peaceful nuclear energy has killed 44 people in the entire nuclear age of the last 75 years compared to 300,000 deaths per year from oil and coal. What was I thinking? Obviously, we must accept the radical environmentalist’s dictates and avoid nuclear as a substitute!

If you believe that our way of life should survive, if you believe that there are no slaves or slaveholders any more, if you believe that most of us are hard-working, good people that want freedom, a mother and a father to raise us and in turn raise our own children, own our home, the right to choose our means of education, jobs, what we read, where we live, with whom we associate, and if you do not believe the environmental alarmists…

YOU MUST VOTE FOR TRUMP!

CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL

What makes a liberal, and what makes a conservative?  Believe it or not, there is a difference in the anatomic structure of liberal and conservative brains. The right amygdala is bigger and more active in conservatives, as demonstrated by brain scans. The amygdala processes emotions. The right amygdala tends to be more associated with negative emotions, fear, anxiety, and depression, which is more in concert with conservatism for unclear reasons. At times of national disaster such as the 9/11 event, people became more conservative in their thinking and the right amygdala got more of a workout. In contrast, the person that feels safe and more in control of his/her environment and destiny is more likely to be liberal. 

The amygdala is part of the limbic system, which is the older brain controlling our automatic, emotional, and visceral responses such as the fight or flight response. We have less conscious control of that part of the brain. It is the brain of the crocodile. Sigmund Freud would call that the ID, the area of the brain that controls actions that are more automatic rather than controlled by the reasoning of the newer brain, the cortex of the evolutionary more recent mind.

CONSERVATIVE BRAIN

Conservatives like the tried and true methods.  In art, they favor classic, representational sculptings, paintings, and music, while the liberals gravitate to abstract, and experimental art and music. Conservatives want the numbers, the evidence, and the proof, while liberals go with the feelings, the emotional impact, the let us see what happens approach.  The Nancy Pelosi famous line on Obama Care explains it best, “Pass the bill so we can find out what is in it!”

Liberals consider themselves to be more understanding and sympathetic. The individual is the product of his genetics, his life influence, and therefore it is not his fault he turned out as he/she did.

At the same time, conservatives tend to put more responsibility on the individual for his or her situation and attribute more weight to honor, personal accountability, and religion to lift up a disadvantaged person.

Children who are aggressive tend to become adults that do not trust authority, the police, the rules, nor the government, and thus are more likely to be left-leaning.

Conservatives like order, and traditional styles of beauty, organized known patterns, and have a more challenging time looking at “yucky stuff.” At the same time, liberals are more interested in the new, even if it evokes unpleasant feelings, and are not nearly as concerned about orderly patterns. Progressives are willing to expose themselves to the untried, potentially ugly side of life, and as a consequence, have more “ah-ha” moments than conservatives. The liberals can accept new concepts with less scrutiny than the conservatives.  The liberal has fewer demands before something new is tried.  They are less resistant to change—this is seen in their eyes. The liberal scans his environment constantly while the conservative tends to focus on one scene.

The liberal needs fewer reasons to change and will accept less evidence with fewer challenges than the conservative.  The liberal does less looking into a new (“progressive”) idea and goes more by the emotional impact and feel of it; consequently, the liberal does not have as complete of a grasp of that idea as a conservative who has challenged it with greater fervor, and whose initial response to most new ideas is usually negative. Mark Twain in that respect was of the view that new ideas are just old ideas re-tooled and not necessarily better. In discussions between the liberal and conservative, the liberal’s arguments use the overall feel of it as a justification for their position more often than data.  This makes it difficult to debate. Feelings are difficult to refute and are not as alterable in contradistinction to opinions even if based on observation. It also explains why a liberal will always stay a liberal and a conservative, remain a conservative. The liberal comes away from most disagreements not only that the conservative is wrong, but that he/she is also evil because feelings are more embedded in our limbic system than data.

The liberal is so certain that anyone who disagrees with him/her must be either stupid, asleep at the wheel, or evil. The liberal would rather just ignore you rather than discuss an issue, as there is no point in discussions with a stupid or evil person.  There are very few conservatives who will break windows, wear pink pussycat caps, or burn bras to make a point, although breaking windows certainly makes more of an emotional statement, and pink pussycat caps and bra-burning most definitively must come from somewhere in the limbic system. The conservative mindset tends to be based more on data, and data is a newer brain cortex function versus emotion that is embedded in the limbic system (reptilian brain). That is why you see many more on the left marching with fervent, sometimes violent protests. It is also easier to torch a building when one is fighting evil. Pulling down monuments that glorify evil then becomes a moral mandate.  It readily explains why liberals will be friends usually only with other liberals but rarely, with conservatives, which becomes a self-validating incestuous process, known as confirmation bias. Being friends with the stupid devil is just not acceptable to their sensibilities on at least two levels. 

The liberal is unafraid to express his/her opinion, and does not hesitate to have Biden posters in his/her front yard.  The conservative is afraid to be labeled “stupid” or “evil” and is even hesitant to admit his conservatism for fear of retaliation or violence, hence the existence of the “Silent Majority” or the “The Shy Trump Voters.” That is why poles may be misleading. We shall see!*

* This essay was inspired by an article in Business Insider, These Key Psychological Differences can Determine Whether You’re Liberal or Conservative, by Hilary Brueck April 19, 2018. 

Some thoughts are also from my father, who practiced Psychiatry. The majority of the essay is my personal opinion after 51 years of practicing medicine.

REASONS TO HATE TRUMP

Leonardo DaVinci’s concept of the bicycle



“He’s the most corrupt lying con artist that has needlessly divided our Country. This is not about socialism, but removing a tyrant wannabe dictator.” Taken from a verbatim quote of a “Facebook friend.” ORANGE MORON ALERT!! Another intellectual Trump hater. Another reason I have heard, “I don’t care for all that Socialist baggage Biden carries with him, but the Cancer needs to be cut out!” That is the first time I have heard Trump compared to cancer. He is so corrupt he won’t even take his salary, but donates it all to the U.S. Treasury, unlike his predecessor, who came to the White House with modest assets and just bought a $12,000,000 house on Martha’s Vineyard.  What about Hunter Biden who worked for Ukraine at $50,000 a month for his “no-show” job with no qualifications except the name Biden.  But he did nothing wrong, according to his father. Does that sound just a bit fishy, especially now with the New York Post revelations?  And I could go on all day, but I won’t.

I wonder when Trump divided the Country?  Was it when Nancy Pelosi tore up his State of the Union speech, or was it when he halted travel from China on January 27th,proving Biden’s accusations of racism and hysterical xenophobia? Or was it perhaps the fact that efforts to impeach him started as soon as he got into office? Or was it when BLM and Antifa took over Seattle?   I do want to point out one issue that Trump solved in just a few pen strokes,  by executive order 13769, to stop the wanton destruction of our Country’s history with no media mention, much less any credit.  It gives you a clue as to how effectively he runs the Country and how much the media despises him.

History is unchangeable; what happened happened.  Some good, some bad, but it all happened.  If we don’t remember it, we are doomed to repeat it, so an old saying goes. Tearing down statues does not change anything but destroy property that belongs to all of us. It was a despicable display of uncivilized humans, our system’s failure, and comes right out of the Communist playbook. England does not tear down the Tower of London, where unspeakable crimes took place for centuries.  Austria and France do not destroy the palaces of Schönbrunn or Versailles that were temples of aristocratic excess and privilege at the expense of the starving masses.  Spain did take down some of Francisco Franco’s monuments, but those that had religious meaning and artistic value, such as the Valley of the Fallen, a memorial to Franco’s defeat of the Communists, and even heroic equestrian statues of Franco himself in many town squares all over Spain still stand.  Franco, incidentally, was a Fascist and ally of Adolph Hitler. Spain did not go ballistic as we did.

As our memorials to heroic Americans were being torn down such as Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, etc., the Democratic mayors and even the democratic Speaker of the House did nothing to discourage this anarchy, in fact they encouraged it, calling it mostly peaceful demonstrations by brave Americans protected by the Constitution.  Even Nancy didn’t worry about masks for the demonstrations. She was more concerned about the theater of being seen kneeling wearing her Kente shawl.

Executive Order 13769 stopped the anarchy the next day altogether.  How did he do it? Decisive action without hesitation – guaranteed long jail terms for offenders!  Who would clean up our Country better, Biden or Trump?

Has Trump really done a  poor job of managing the pandemic?  There has not been a National plan; but every State has been managed by the Governor of that State, some very well and some not so well. That has been the traditional way the U.S. handles problems that are State oriented. I cannot see an issue that is more State oriented than the health of your people in each State. The solutions of which are different in each municipality, and related to the management of businesses, schools, transportation, law enforcement, churches, and other local concerns. The choices available to manage the pandemic are to follow the only means we have at this time to cause fewer people to become infected.  Stay home, go out for only essential purposes, wash hands frequently, don’t touch your face, wear a mask when out in public (even between bites at a restaurant on the order of Gavin Newsom, Governor of California), stay 6 feet apart from other people, do not go to events with large crowds, and that is about all you can do. Putting Covid patients into large nursing homes would be a mistake, as governor Cuomo discovered 6000 deaths later. Presidential control of National Management is a bit overrated, if not presumptuous. I just don’t see the National Guard enforcing hand washing or face touching very useful and in a meaningful way. Do we even want the President to tell us when to open our schools? What would a National Plan look like? More complete shutdowns with more small business bankruptcy, more depression, and suicides? I see little room to do anything different.  Regardless, since the Governors are running the show, would it not be the Governors who get the credit or blame? Whoever gets the honors, our numbers show the U.S. with mortality rates are in the top one third, considerably better than Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Germany and Switzerland are close, but we still beat them in mortality per 100,000 by a fraction. It is true that we have a higher number of cases. That is a function of public health measures of each municipality, not under the President’s control.  Italy charged violators of local ordinances up to up to € 3,000, Germany put them in jail. In contradistinction, our brilliant methods defund police, ordered police to stand down for arson and looting. How in heaven’s name are we going to enforce mask-wearing or gatherings of more than 10 people? To blame the President for our pandemic response and results fails to place the responsibility appropriately, given our options. Even comparisons to other advanced industrialized nations we are not all that different. Europe has reached 237,778 deaths to date surpassing us, and it’s not over until it is over, as said by the philosopher Yogi Berra. Managing to blame Trump suggests that someone has done some clever bait and switch work.

What are Trump’s accomplishments and failures?  Before Covid, he made the economy as good as it has been, with the lowest unemployment it has ever had. With Covid, he has brought it almost back from the brink, setting a new record in the S&P 500 and NASDAQ. Our unemployment numbers are 7.9%, certainly not as good as they were at 3.5% before the pandemic, but still better than during than Obama’s unemployment numbers during his entire first term (look it up). When you compare our mortality numbers with the rest of the world (and you should, I recommend the website of Johns Hopkins), the Covid virus has been managed better than two-thirds of the rest of the world!  He has lowered the taxes for the population and the business world, bringing back companies that have previously gone to Europe and Asia, along with their jobs. He has decreased unmanageable bureaucracy in agriculture, industry, and energy by also removing burdensome, unnecessary, and expensive regulations. He has made us energy independent. He is not going to destroy us economically, catering to fanatic environmentalism, which by the way, has a new branch of environmentalism, humanistic environmentalism, that is much more common sense and pragmatic (read National Best Seller, Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger). It is something that we could live with, unlike the Green New Deal or the Biden Plan that belongs in the radical environmentalist playbook that would tank the economy more than Covid-19 has.

Trump works within the Constitution and its first ten articles, the Bill of Rights. Where are all the divisive things he has done? Ah yes, all those scathing books that condemned his actions, people that worked in his administration, people whom he hired and then fired. The devil is in the details.  John Bolton had a long list of complaints: Trump has lapses in geographic knowledge, wanted to quit NATO, wanted to invade Venezuela, didn’t know which countries had “the Bomb,” wanted China to buy soybeans from our farmers, which would help him win the election in some mysterious way, etc. Those evil deeds have not had much of an impact on anything. People that get fired usually don’t have good things to say about their boss. It couldn’t be their failures? I have a certain degree of skepticism of their assessment. I don’t have the knowledge or interest to figure it all out.  But the person who is responsible for this Country must call the shots.  If some people were unjustly treated, they are entitled to write their books, which will make them rich. I wish them no ill and good luck in getting a good book deal. 

Besides not being able to pronounce Yosemite, Trump has made little headway with China.  At this point, they are waiting to deal with Biden, who they think is going to be much softer on them regarding all the industrial spying, the financial trickery of currency manipulation, and all the trade unfairness that China has utilized to gain massive advantages over us.  Xi Jinping is likely to outwit Biden and Harris, especially with Hunter Biden at his side.

For me, it is mostly about Socialism and the Green New Deal.  We are going to take a sharp left turn economically and in the Bill of Rights 1st and 2nd Amendment ( Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms), elimination of fossil fuels without sufficient energy substitution i.e., a life with less of everything, smaller cars with shorter range, no more Prime Rib – too much Methane from the cows – get used to vegan, substitute high-speed rail for air travel, we don’t need airplanes (the high-speed rail from LA to Fresno – Yes Fresno – will cost at least $20.4 billion!), more rolling blackouts, smaller harvests (no gasoline-powered farm equipment), less energy available for work, play, travel, entertainment, etc. An advanced industrialized civilization needs energy to do the things we have been accustomed to doing. How long do you think Las Vegas would last with its electricity cut to 25% or less because of substitution with renewable energy that produces not even 10% of our energy nationwide? Germany has been trying to convert to renewable energy for the last 12 years at the cost of € 1 trillion ($1.2 trillion) and  € 32 billion ($38 billion) a year to produce barely half their electric needs, and they still have to buy wood from us. It costs Germans three times more for electricity than it costs us. Renewables just do not pencil out! Look at Africa; they cannot sustain their wildlife, their food supply, and their economy at the present levels of available energy. All of which have contributed to genocide and near extinction of many already endangered species such as the mountain gorillas.

Trump is brash, at times crude, not diplomatic, says what he thinks unfiltered, doesn’t wear the mask as much as he should, is not liked by the suburban woman, changes out advisers like underwear, but he is not going to change the Constitution or the Supreme Court as we know it. To my Facebook friend who thinks Trump is a wannabe dictator – you ain’t seen nothing yet when Socialists will run the Country. You haven’t seen what real dictators do! We have been promised a restructuring of our government by the “squad”: AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley under the guidance of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist. With the predicted Democratic sweep, get ready for changes! My parents had to run away from their country of birth because of the Socialists and their utopian changes that promised a worker’s paradise – that never came.  Unfortunately, we have no place to run. By the way, speaking of running, do you have a bicycle?  You will need one. And in case they turn us all into vegans, eat all the steak while you can.

DEMENTIA

National Institute of Health

Dementia, the elephant in the room that no one is talking about, is a serious consideration in Joe Biden’s ability to become the 46th president of the U.S. It is a diagnosis that can only be made by a trained physician. There have been many physicians that have weighed in on the question, including the White House physician, Admiral Ronny Jackson, who was there during the Obama/Biden tenure.  He agrees with the dementia diagnosis, but does say he has not examined him. It requires cognitive tests and occasionally imaging studies, all of which Biden has declined to do.  Incidentally, Trump has taken these tests and passed them. So how will we know if we are electing a demented man?

Election of a person with significant health challenges is not without precedence. In 1944 Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for his fourth term, and despite his poor health that made it almost certain that he would die in office, was elected.  He died four months after he took office. The country was lucky that Truman turned out to be a good president at the termination of World War II. 

Biden is 77 years old. He will turn 78, November 20, 2020, the oldest president to ever assume office in our history.  At age 65 the risk of Dementia is 8.8% and doubles every five years.  At 78 the risk will be about 23%.  Dementia is in short, the loss of the ability to think. There are multiple cognitive functions that give us the ability to think. The key feature is memory impairment. Just one other brain function is required to make the diagnosis of dementia, aphasia (language deficit), apraxia (movement deficit), agnosia (deficit in recognizing things), and loss of executive function (mental control and self-regulation).

Biden has demonstrated deficiencies in every one of these brain functions.  He has flubbed on many occasions as to where he is or for what office he is running (memory). He mixes words up or forgets them– “we choose truth over facts” and “all men and women are created equal, by the, you know, you know the thing…”  (aphasia). He has mixed up his wife and sister (agnosia). He has developed a mild shuffling gate (apraxia), and has had several strange outbursts in interviews (loss of executive functions). Does that make him demented?  It is not a formal diagnosis by a qualified physician, but it does make me, who also happens to be a physician and who has seen a lot of dementia in 51 years of practice, seriously wonder.

The fact that Nancy Pelosi is dusting off the 25th Amendment, and emphasizes that it is not directed at Trump, but a template for whenever we might need it. That is in itself another concerning fact of the subtle hints we get.  The 25th Amendment gives Congress the ability to remove a sitting president for health reasons, physical or mental.  Dementia tends to have a rapid course of deterioration.  The average life span of a patient with dementia is 4.5 years.  If that is his diagnosis, he will be lucky to finish one term as president.  In the end, it often will be severe, inability to communicate, walk, and even swallow.  Of course, the VP will have taken over long before that.  Which is another issue of perhaps bigger concern.  Which evil would you rather have, a demented president or a Socialist president?

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

The predictions are that if Biden does NOT win, and win by a large majority, the riots and looting we have seen so far will be far surpassed in numbers, violence, and area.  That is truly frightening. Nineteen million gun purchases have occurred in the first six months of 2020, and 95 % of those purchases are first time buyers! Why is that?

People buy guns because they are afraid. Afraid of what? I would presume it is other people that want to hurt them, and not that they are target practicing enthusiasts.  Why do you suppose that millions of people think that someone wants to hurt them?

 Do the “ peaceful” riots in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Denver, Detroit, Des Moines, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, San Francisco, Phoenix, New York City, and Louisville, etc. have anything to do with it? The estimates of people that have participated in the protests are said to be between 15,000,000 and 26,000,000.  Along with threats that they will march in suburban neighborhoods and instigate street fights. This has further heightened tensions.

In a Democracy, if a service is not provided or deemed inadequate, people will provide that service themselves. With all those guns in circulation, now would be bad timing for defunding the police.  If anything, the police should receive more funding, commensurate with the re-arming of the population.

Keep in mind that there are already 400,000,000 guns in the US, with a population of 330,000,000. The ownership of guns among political affiliation favors Republicans by a wide margin.  57% of Republicans own guns while only 25% of Democrats do. Racial demographics favor whites as majority gun owners at 49%, blacks at 32%, and Hispanics at 21%. Are the poles poling the wrong people? Did they ask the gun-buying folks? 

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those 14 words have endlessly and contentiously been debated. Even repeal has been suggested by prominent politicians, judges, and law enforcement.   By the implied consenses of the gun-owning population, the vast majority feel a need to protect themselves by owning a lethal weapon that they can use against a personal attack on their being and family, as well as in the cause of defending ourselves and our nation against assaults on our freedom. 

The first thing any dictator did was to disarm the population.  The democratic platform has placed a variety of anti-second amendment policies on the table and in print, some of which would require turning in of guns (mandatory repurchase), decreasing the firepower of weapons, requiring government approval and licensing of a weapon, a purchaser, and a seller.  All of these policies are seen to be efforts to “infringe the right to keep and bear Arms.” Many of these proposed regulations would turn a vast number of law-abiding Americans into criminals over-night if implemented.

The understanding of the power of a firearm is not clear to many people, including those that seek the highest office in the land and show considerable and surprising ignorance.  Presidential candidate Joe Biden said on June 1, 2020, at a Wilmington Delaware church, and I quote word for word, “When there is an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing.” The man that authored the controversial 1994 crime bill, which included the much-touted assault weapons ban, demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge about guns, what semi-automatic vs. automatic means, or what an AK-47 really is. He not only lacks knowledge about weapons, but confrontations, police training, and common sense.  Firstly, someone carrying a knife is not unarmed.  A knife is just as lethal as a gun at close quarters. In a potentially lethal confrontation, the individual does not have time to aim at the foot with any precision. In fact, a RAND report on the NYPD states that even with substantial training, most police officers miss 50-75% of their shots. A self-defense course I have taken taught by former police officers to the standards of the LAPD, teach to shoot at the largest target where it will count, as that may be your only chance to come out of that situation alive.

The Lone Ranger could shoot a gun out of the hand of the Bandido on the silver screen but not in real life.  Those are fairytales. People that believe in fairytales and then have the power to create policies that affect millions of people have the duty to become better informed. Additionally, if an evading suspect continues to escape after being tased twice, and has a gun pointed at him, reaches into his car despite the order to raise his hands, the officer has not only the right, but duty, to assume that the suspect has a lethal weapon in that car.  He must shoot or be shot a second later!

THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH*

I am tired of hearing about all the lies that Trump tells, yet I have seen very little documentation of the Truth of such lies, and that he has told 20,000 lies sounds like a lie as well.  To bring some clarification to this, I wrote this essay as an attempt to provide some documentation. Webster’s College Dictionary defines “lie” as “not the truth.” Then what is “truth”?  It is defined as, ” being in accord with reality and fact.” Many of Trump’s statements that are put in the column of lies seem to deal with exaggerations, opinion, wishful thinking, and predictions.  They deal with unknowables, guesses, and future events, the reality of which has not yet happened and, therefore, do not fit the definition. For example, the statement, “The pandemic will just fade away,” is a presumption — anyone who sees that as Truth has an I.Q. issue and needs education or therapy. The maker of that statement should assume he is speaking to normal people, and should not modify his address as if his audience is mentally deficient or childish. The Mueller investigation had 15 prosecutors, took two years and spent $32,000,000 of taxpayer money, issued 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, interviewed 40 FBI agents and 500 witnesses under oath, and still failed to prove  Russian collusion!  We must assume, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no collusion. That removes a large number of Trump lies out of the lie list. 

To be fair, however, I thought I would discuss the lies from the left. Even Biden has called Trump out as being a lier.  Biden has questionable credentials to make those claims.  Biden stated he had three degrees, that he was near the top of his law school class, and that he had an academic scholarship. That he was first in his family to attend college is one of his favorite lies he resurrected from decades ago, and just repeated at a recent town hall meeting. He forgot about his great grandfather and several members of his mother’s family. He had only one undergraduate degree. In fact, he was near the bottom of his class in all three years of law school. His scholarship was based on financial need and not because of academic excellence. Check it out  yourself: https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/may/07/ad-watch-fact-checking-video-about-bidens-academic/

Biden has a compulsive bent towards plagiarism, copying President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Neil Kinnock, British Labor Party leader verbatim without acknowledgment, even plagiarizing of all people, Trump about buying American products and hiring  American workers. He also likes to fabricate events that put him in a heroic light, like having been shot at in South Africa, participating in civil rights marches, and backing black high school classmates who were discriminated against.  Unfortunately, none of those things happened. If he plays footloose with his own history, how do you think he will play with your history, your future, your rights, and freedoms?

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer is a favorite line of Bernie Sanders, but it is also a lie.  The rich invest their money, creating jobs that create income for the poor and the middle class. The world poverty rate for a family of four is an annual income at $2800.  It is $25,250 in the U.S., which does not include the $1.3 trillion of welfare that the poor additionally get for health care, food stamps, subsidized housing, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These are not included in the calculation for income that most of the rest of the world’s poor do not get. The poor in the U.S. do not pay tax on welfare, which is substantial, at least doubling their income and in some cases tripling it. Also at a certain threshold, the poor pay no federal income tax at all, but still qualify for various tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. And of course, the poor do not pay an estate tax, which is a tax on money that has already been taxed once. So much for the Boston Tea Party, which protested another unfair tax. America’s poor are the rest of the world’s rich. America’s poor all eat well, live in decent housing, have medical care, a car, a cell phone, a refrigerator, color T.V., and a heated home.  The rest of the world does not.

Bernie needs to change his line to, “A rising tide raises all boats.” That is why the rest of the world all want to live in the USA!  That is why we need a wall. America is one of the few countries where you can reach your dreams if you are willing to delay gratification and put the work and time into it.  My family came here from Europe with $500 of assets in 1954. Both my sister and I went to college and have had a rewarding life. We were not given anything; we earned every bit of it!

Trickle-down economics does work.  That is something that anyone with half a brain should be able to intuitively figure out.  If you have the money, it will not go under the mattress. You will either save it or spend it. If you spend it, this will create a need to replace whatever you bought.  Someone will need to make your purchased product to replace it. That creates a job.  If you save it, it gives the bank more money to lend to buy a car or a loan for a small business to grow.  Only a democratic politician would claim that trickle-down does not work, and only a person that does not understand economics and cannot reason would believe it.

When people say the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes that is absolutely absurd! The upper 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of all taxes, and the top 50 % pay 97% of taxes, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of taxes. I have liberal friends that dispute this, but refuse to look on the IRS website, as they believe those numbers are impossible and that I am lying.  Besides, I doubt that they care what the Truth is.

America is “systemically racist” is an accusation that is dubious, to say the least.  First, all slaves that came to America were brought here by the English, who bought them from black African royalty that enslaved black people and sold them.  338,000 black people came to North America!  Do the African aristocracy that captured the misfortunate and the slave traders get any of the blame?  Slaves were gradually freed after 1776, and the North fought the most bloody war 85 years later to free the rest, with a loss of mostly white men’s lives of 350,000.  Was that the “White Privilege” to die at Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Bull Run, Shiloh, and 10,000 more battlefields that everybody talks about? Can’t we get some credit and gratitude for that instead of blame? We should be proud of that achievement instead of taking a knee! White folk are the heroes of that fight! Are we forgetting that? Slavery has existed for at least 11,000 years.  It is true that we were not the first to abandon slavery in 1862 with the Emancipation Proclamation, but we were not the last either.  It took the United Nations until 1948 to abolish worldwide slavery.  Syria waited until 2019 to make it illegal! That was just last year!

Almost half of the voting electorate who voted for Obama were white.  Were all those people racists?  Really? Many of the black intelligentsia like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Candice Owens, Morgan Freeman, Condoleezza Rice, Ben Carson, and many more black intellectuals question the reality of “systemic racism.” I see systemic racism as one of those Socialist “Big Lies.” Stalin invented the concept. If you repeat the same lie over and over, they will eventually believe it.

Biden in the first presidential debate, denied that he supports the “Green New Deal,” but his website says he does.  Which lie are we supposed to believe? Or is it just a typo?

A popular conception is that President Trump made the Corona pandemic much more lethal, causing many more unnecessary deaths.  Much is made of what he said and when he said it. The world’s mortality numbers, however, show the U.S. is in the upper third in successfully controlling the virus. What is important is not what he said, but what he did and what the ultimate result was. When you look at the mortality of the most affected countries in the world, the U.S. did not do all that badly. Europe’s death numbers are now 200,000, nearly equal to ours. 

A more accurate comparison of mortality is seen on the Johns Hopkins Mortality chart of percent of deaths per 100,000 population as of 10/5/2020.  The worst in the world, Italy, was not even included at 11.1% deaths per 100,000. We did 3.8 times better than Italy, 1.8 times better than France, and half as good as India, the best country at 0.55.  It is true that we had more cases than most.  This is a function of public health enforcement. While we were defunding the police, most of Europe was hiring more law enforcement, and people that did not comply with public health edicts were fined with very stiff penalties, some exceeding several thousand euros, and if they still didn’t comply, they went to jail. Admittedly our President didn’t wear his mask consistently, and Nancy Pelosi went to hair salons when it was not allowed. The will of our population would not tolerate that level of stringency. We can’t even control looters, arsonists, and rioters. How are we going to enforce mask-wearing, social distancing, and handwashing? The politicians and public were also very concerned about the balance of the pandemic vs. the economy, and that has become a major contributor to our lax attitude.

What Trump said about hydroxychloroquine was when there were still prominent supporters like the Lancet, the world’s best known medical journal, and others who still do. If you paid attention, you will note he didn’t take it now when he had the infection. Besides, taking it or not had as much effect as acupuncture, that many still hold in high esteem.  More to the point, that Trump is to blame for more deaths is not supported by the evidence or the numbers.  I have to conclude that it is just another lie!

Republicans are the party of the rich.  That used to be true, but in 2018 the Democrats reclaimed the House of Representatives because of gains among the rich.  The wealthier counties have flipped to blue. There is a worldwide movement that has attracted the rich to become more liberal.  The U.K. has increasingly seen a rise in the Liberal Democrats, and in Germany, the Green Party has made gains all because the upper-middle class has joined with the populists as they have in the U.S.  The Democrats have now become the party of the rich.

The biggest lie is what Democratic Socialists are.  We are about to vote on one of the more important elections of our life.  Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Democratic Socialists have vowed to tear down our system and fundamentally change our way of life, our economy, our government, our Constitution, our energy consumption, and more! Do the smart Democrats not pay attention to what they say? Or do they not care?

I have not gotten to 20,000 lies yet, but give me time!

*Several concepts are taken from an essay: “Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists – Exposing the Danger” by Bruce Hendry

THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Only 3% of the world’s electrical needs are supplied by the renewables.  In the US, Wind provides 7.3%, Solar provides 1.8%,  Fossil fuels 62.7%, and Coal 23.5%. Most of the rest is hydroelectric that has held steady for decades. Germany, with great effort and cost, has 55.8% of the energy generated from renewables, some of which is wood that has, by the way, a larger Carbon footprint than oil.  It cost Germany half a trillion Euros to accomplish this, along with 32 billion Euros a year, to be able to provide that amount of renewable energy. Germans pay the most for electricity in all of Europe, and about three times more than Americans pay for the same amount of electric power. Since wind and Solar are not consistently available, the energy would need to be stored in some form of battery to provide the energy needed when the sun is not shining, or the wind is not blowing.  At the present time, the battery storage costs alone for the USA would be 23 trillion dollars annually. That is 1 trillion more than the annual gross domestic product.  Hardly doable.

Renewables are just not going to do it. Besides the expense, they, too, have their adverse environmental impact. Wind turbines, for example, kill more birds than any other etiology.  The larger birds are most affected, like eagles, falcons, condors, cranes, hawks, and more.  Large birds have a slower reproductive cycle than the small birds and, as a consequence, are disproportionately killed to where extinction for some of the birds that are already endangered becomes a likelihood.  The companies that deal in wind are not at all anxious to acknowledge their murderous tendencies towards birds, and additionally to bats and insects, much less what to do to mitigate it.  They keep their windfarms under lock and key to prevent anyone from seeing the extermination of birds, bats, and insects. Where are the compassionate environmentalists?

Solar, hardly a factor at 1.8%, takes up vast swaths of land.  It would take 22,000 square miles of solar panels to power the USA.   That would be the entire square area of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Delaware combined. 

I know that fossil fuels will eventually run out, and as a finite resource, fossil fuels could be put to much better uses than burning them.  It is the source of making plastics, a variety of medications, lubricants, fertilizer, paving material, dyes, deodorant, paint, detergents, even heart valves, and hundreds of other products. To burn it is almost criminal. Although, fossil fuels, as the main and only source of global warming, seem a bit far-fetched for me to accept.  What about the sun and its spots, the ocean currents, the clouds, Milankovitch cycles, El Niño, La Niña, Cow farts, vulcanos, etc.? As a physician, my thinking is scientifically oriented. Lowering CO2 levels, not the best greenhouse gas, as the only way to lower global temperature seems a bit simplistic to me as a non-climate scientist. There have been times on earth when CO2 levels were 7000 ppm.  It should have been like an oven, but the earth was a frozen snowball from pole to pole. Likewise, there were times on earth when the CO2 levels were 100 ppm. It should have been an ice age, but polar bears were frolicking in lush green forests north of the Arctic circle, and Eric the Red was growing beans in Greenland. If that is not true, why would there be skeletal remains of bears and saber-tooth tigers, and billions of gallons of oil under the Arctic permafrost?

I am also not for enriching other countries, especially our enemies, by buying their oil. But I do question the need to lower CO2 levels quickly, with devastating economic consequences to the poorer nations, especially Africa, which would devastate their economy and starve thousands of Africans. We have time and options that do not cause economic disaster. 

I hope that lowering CO2 levels will affect global temperature, as climate scientists predict.  Keep in mind that the concept of lowering CO2 and influencing the global temperature is just a theory that has not been proven.  Association does not mean causation. No one has shown that a lower level of  CO2 will lower the temperature and add ice to the Arctic ice shelf. No climate scientist has any idea what will really happen, but I do think our air quality will get better, and there will be fewer people dying of emphysema and other chronic lung conditions. If it lowers global temperatures, that would be a good thing also.

But how do we lower CO2 levels? We must reduce our carbon footprint.  It is obvious to all but the hardcore environmentalists that renewable energy will not reduce the carbon footprint.  It is not affordable; it is not even logistically possible. Even Germany, who has done more at an enormous cost to get barely above 50% from renewables, still has to use wood to do so.  A source of clean energy is available and has been available for decades.  Nuclear Energy! 

Oh! But nuclear energy is so dangerous.  Really?  How many people have died from nuclear accidents? In the last 75 years, the timespan of our nuclear age, there have been 44 deaths directly attributable to radiation accidents! The most lethal so far was Chernobyl, with 28 deaths.  There are estimates of a potential 5000 cancer-related deaths. But primarily thyroid cancers have appeared, which usually are curable and have not caused any deaths. There were more deaths (600) in Fukushima from stress, related to the evacuation of old people, than there were from radiation, which was only one person who died of lung cancer along with three non- radiation deaths from industrial accidents.  Nuclear power stations are not nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are a complex device that nuclear fuel rods do not even approach in the ability to explode. The bomb is an entirely different animal that can and has killed thousands.  The exact death toll of Nagasaki and Hiroshima will never be known. Estimates are that 80,000 in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki died instantly, with an additional 70,000 dying later of illnesses caused by the bomb such as cancer.  The overall death toll would be close to 200,000. 

When a nuclear power plant has a meltdown, the worst-case scenario, the numbers are considerably smaller; Fukushima had only one death, for example.  The better way to compare the risks of all forms of energy sources is to look at deaths per terawatt hour. A Town of 27,000 people would consume one terawatt hour of energy in one year. Nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest form of energy!

What about the radioactive waste produced by the nuclear power plant?  That waste will be there for a thousand years. The typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station that produces the energy need of a million people produces three cubic meters of waste a year. Compare that to a 1000 megawatt coal power plant that produces 300,000 tons of ash and 6,000,000 tons of COevery year. 

France recycles its nuclear waste, which produces more electricity and reduces the volume of the fuel rods. The spent fuel rods do eventually have to be stored, usually mixed with glass and buried in deep tunnels that are then sealed. Speaking of France, they have used nuclear energy since 1974, and 75% of their electricity comes from nuclear power.  They produce so much electrical power that they sell large amounts of it to neighboring states and still have the cheapest electricity in the world. They have had 12 accidents over a 50-year time span with no deaths and no permanent shutdowns.

Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Generating Plant

(I am not counting my wife’s loss of her sense of smell when we bicycled around the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Generating Plant of the Loire Valley in 2001.  After that trip, she could never smell again!)

It is clear to me that nuclear energy is the ideal choice to become our main source of power because it is safe, not just safe – very safe, compared to all other means of generating energy, and it is cheap. I believe the population if they were properly educated, would accept nuclear power. What about fossil fuels? If one counts accidental deaths and adds pollution deaths, it is a staggering 300,000 per year. 

In my experience, environmentalists as a group are educated and above-average IQ people. Most of them are far left of center politically. Why they reject nuclear energy is a mystery to me.  Is there another motive for their obviously illogical stance?  Could there be a more sinister reason? They have done a pretty good hatchet job on nuclear energy as being evil and convincing the population that human-made CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. With our next election, we may get a taste of the “Green New Deal” to lower CO2 levels. It will create societal stresses that could destroy our economy, set back our way of life, and usurp many of our freedoms. COVID-19 was a good trial run of what a crisis does.  Look how quickly it destroyed our economy, set back our lifestyle, and took away many of our freedoms. 

Nuclear would provide clean and cheap energy.  The environmentalists and most of the left-leaning population have made it abundantly clear that they do not want nuclear energy, based on false assumptions that ignore the science and the evidence.

Why is the population, including the environmentalists, so confused about the safety of nuclear energy? Renewables can not provide the energy we need. That is a fact that has been proven by all the rolling blackouts we have had, and by countries that have really tried to replace fossil fuels and eliminate nuclear energy, such as Germany, and still cannot satisfy the electricity needs. There are behind the scenes events that could explain the discrepancy.  The Brown dynasty of Pat Brown, California governor from 1959 to 1967, then his son Jerry Brown from 1975 to 1983, and finally Kathleen Brown, Jerry’s sister, had major impacts on energy policy. The family had significant holding in Indonesian oil companies, as well as oil and gas producing real estate in the US and Mexico. Jerry Brown had much to do with the closure of nuclear power plants in California, even appearing and speaking in anti-nuclear rallies, and appointing regulators that were hostile to nuclear power, as well as constructing pipelines which would bring oil to California.  To a lesser extent, the oil multi-billionaire, Tom Steyer, campaigned against nuclear energy in Arizona, while at the same time funding renewable proponents like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Renewables can’t provide enough electricity, and nuclear is being eliminated, leaving fossil fuel as the only option. And guess who has that commodity for sale? Isn’t that called a conflict of interest?

But is there another explanation? Perhaps CO2 levels are not the entire motivation for their stubborn resistance. The utopia that many of these idealogue environmentalists have in mind requires fewer people, a simpler life, smaller all-electric cars, more bicycles, no jets crisscrossing the sky, less mobility of people, no meat (animals produce Methane – a greenhouse gas), a more communal life housed in big cities with large skyscrapers, eliminating suburban sprawl, which would be cheaper than millions of one-family homes, making energy easier to distribute, making commuting a thing of the past, and taking control of large groups of humans effortlessly. These are not my thoughts. You can find them in AOC’s ramblings, in Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, and in the Socialist blueprint for our nation. There would be a top-down government that controls most aspects of daily activity, thought, education, and money. 

Social Democrats like AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris dream of that. They have “vast experience” in Socialist economics.  Bernie administered Burlington, Vermont as mayor for several terms, Kamala was the Attorney General of California (a Socialistic wannabe), and AOC could add all her experience as a Manhatten bartender!  I do not question that they would do it better than has been done by all the other countries that have tried Socialism and failed, like India, England, Israel, Venezuela, and above all, Russia, and all the Russian client countries, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Chechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are, by the way, have Capitalist governments, according to all economists, even though they are heavily invested in welfare.

Our capable and brilliant Social Democrats control a presidential candidate who has already been pulled to the left by them and will be further manipulated as his cognitive functions continue to wain. Why would they want nuclear energy that could easily and cheaply replace oil? The CO2 gig has worked well so far.  It will serve adequately as a trigger for our next crisis. Why change? That might just spoil some well thought out plans.

My parents were Socialists in their youth but discovered their flaws quickly when they lived in the Socialist worker’s paradise, the Soviet Socialist Republic, but ran away before they too were slated to join the millions who died in the Gulags. I learned from them how Socialists think. Eliminating fossil fuels rapidly as proposed by the “Green New Deal,” would create a crisis. In the words of Rahm Emanuel, former Major of Chicago, “Never let a good crisis go to waste!” Ah, but that sounds too conspiratorial and paranoid, doesn’t it?

Yet such fervor against nuclear energy, with the evidence so clear and convincing, there must be another explanation for environmentalism’s opposition.  I either overestimated their intelligence, or their education is substandard, or my conspiracy theory may just be right. Even a Paranoiac is right once in a while.

IN DEFENCE OF HYPOCRISY

Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell is accused of being a hypocrite because he would not give a Senate hearing to an Obama nominee 9 months before the 2016 election, citing that the newly elected president should have the authority to appoint the replacement for Scalia, yet now he is rushing to get a nominee who will be selected by Trump in just weeks before the 2020 election. 

Yes, McConnell said what he said.  The situation has changed four years later,  and four years is a very long time in political discourse.  The country is more divided than I have seen it in my lifetime.  I would even say we are as near to an armed civil conflict as we have been since the Civil War.  Uprisings and civil unrest are surpassing the Vietnam era. The two parties cannot get together on anything even when it comes to helping the unemployed buy a loaf of bread.  Impeachment is threatened a second time by Nancy Pelosi.  Given this escalated level of unbridled hatred, I would be surprised if either party would honor the rhetoric of four years ago. 

Obama tried to get his nominee in when he had the nominating power in 2016. McConnell would not go with that because he had the veto power.  Practically it would have made no difference as the Supreme Court nominee would likely have been rejected by a Republican Senate anyway, if he had been granted a hearing.  It would have wasted a lot of time and rivaled the Kavanaugh hearing in political mudslinging. I suspect that was the real reason McConnell did not want to put the Senate through that spectacle.  But that didn’t resonate honorably either, so he came up with a politically more correct reason. Shame on him for trying to be politically correct.

To let an opportunity to waterproof the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is a chance that likely will not come again for generations. If the Presidency and Senate flip, the next Supreme Court Justices will then be a four-five liberal to conservative mix.  On the other hand, because Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch often cross the divide, this exposes all the conservative holy grail issues to the risk of reversal. To fail to secure the opportunity to solidify the conservative position would not only be stupid but sell out all the people that elected the current group of Senators.  The next election may be a Democratic sweep.  If the judicial branch also has the potential to turn left, it would guarantee radical changes in our form of government.  Keeping the Supreme Court on the conservative side may be the only means that conservatives will have to stop the Socialists to radically transform the country.

Stupid vs. Hypocracy is the choice.  Had the situation been reversed under an Obama, Clinton, or Johnson Senate, what would the Senate Majority leader have done?  Hypocrisy may not be virtuous, but it is defendable; stupidity and failure to represent your constituency are not!