Is the Virus Killing Freedom

The President has said we are at war.

The President has said we are at war.

An Ohio House unrepresentative Democrat has proposed charging President Trump with ‘crimes against humanity’ through the International Tribunal (A.K.A. World Court). The boiling point that will push neighbors against neighbors in a bloody civil war is getting closer as hate consumes more democrats watching their political power dwindle. Will America be the site of the next Rwanda genocide where citizens were agitated by the party in power into virtually killing their opposition. Is that so much different from what Nancy Peloci and such politicians as we see in the Ohio House screaming. Hate has a history of overpowering societies.

Recently Patriot Essays published a post titled: Timeline to the 2nd Civil War which outlined the history of repeating the most destructive events of civilized societies; wars within those societies implemented to affect or resist dramatic changes. The pattern for these events was recognized some 2500 years ago by the Estuscans. Yet today, with the advantage of instant communications around the world, with the ability to hold language translators in the palm of hands, the United States rest at the precipace of another saeculum. We have reached the final years of the generation who failed to pass an understanding of the value of freedom to those who have now become government officials and representatives. We have allowed our schools and colleges to teach a history distorted, revised and even reversed by the generation of teachers Ronald Reagan correctly predicted as the last generation for freedom on Earth.

Today we are willing to standby as armed officers chain the doors of some private businesses while their competitors are allowed to remain open – all the name of public health! In one area officials deem one business is essential, and another is forced to close at the point of a gun. All the while in another area essential businesses are defined totally different. Even the person or persons with authority to make these decisions varies without questions by the citizens. Where is the guide for which business is essential for who? Why is one store chained shut while another is heralded for the bravery of its employees to serve the public’s interest. The President has repeatedly warned that the value of the cure must not exceed the cost.

There is no doubt the corona virus is attacking across the world without respect for borders or political ideology. It must be fought with as much resolve as any enemy in any war. But is that resolve to reach a truce with a virus to come at the cost of human rights and the final defeat of freedom in its last stronghold on Earth? Have so many generations before us given their lives and fortunes for the very freedoms this war is erasing? House Majority Whip James Clyburn made it clear when stated that the covid-19 crisis is a “tremendous opportunity” to “restructure government” and advance democratic policy goals. (1)

While the nation suffers both emotionally and economically, the covid crisis is being considered as a great opportunity by too many politicians. The recent financial relief bill enacted by congress is a major victory for politicians seeking to buy power by creating a dependent constituency. More importantly than individual benefits is the opportunity to widen the divide between the political parties through oversight of the spending of the relief programs by partisan career politicians.

Just as local officials are choosing which businesses are allowed to stay open and which will lose by being forced to close, federal level programs were built into the relief bill to direct money to supporters without regard for the intent of the relief. To insure of the success of this corrupt plan, House majority leader Nancy Pelosi has appointed the chairmanship of the oversight committee to a loyal party soldier with no qualifications except party politics.

Normally this sort of financial corruption goes unnoticed and unreported. But with so many Americans staying home by directives from government, the despicable behavior of the democratic leadership in the House of Representatives is creating anger and an atmosphere of distrust in government at all levels. AN anger that has been simmering since James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes for which others are in prison and Americans saw that justice was no longer equal for all.

The evidence is clear. Gun sales are setting new records with each additional restriction imposed on the citizens. History always seems to have a way of repeating.

(1) Just one day after the original posting of this essay, the news carried details of as much as $20million being spent by anti-American groups attempting to defeat Trump by advertising how poorly his administration is dealing with the covid-19 pandemic.


The popularity of the internet as a source of information has grown as the credibility of the major media has declined. Newspapers across the country have recognized they must be online if they are to survive economically and remain politically influential. One advantage is that internet sites offer greater control over what the readers access than printed papers. But those controls also allow the opportunity for deceptive censorship practices. After all, omitting key information is a more effective form of censorship than the popular form of redacting documents where the readers know there was something important blacked out.

When Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that he would rather have newspapers without a country than a country without newspapers, he believed the uncensored sharing of unbiased news and opinions among the people was critical to free men. But with the loss of neutrality by the press and morality in society, would Jefferson repeat those words today? Has media become too politically bias and unaccountable? In the sphere of the internet, can we even identify who is entitled to those special protections Jefferson was advocating?

Since the Federalist Papers, newspapers’ editorial opinions have always had influence with politicians. However, recent decades have seen a transition from reporting news separate from the opinions to reporting opinions as news. Readers have very limited opportunity to learn the truth behind the headlines for themselves. Nevertheless, every newsroom receives the occasional letter opposing news and/or editorial content. Unfortunately letters-to-the-editor are typically limited to a just a few words, are subject to editing, and most never reach the public at all.

While the popularity of charging for content has filtered down from national to local newspaper sites, the pay-per-hit advertising revenues have declined as subscribers numbers fall. Recently, the local paper in Loveland, Colorado initiated a program that prevents access to the letters to the editor without a paid subscription. As a business the paper has the right to charge for content. But as a newspaper with special protections afforded under the Constitution does it have constitutional obligation to be both honest in reporting and inclusive of opposing opinions.

In the case of the Loveland Reporter Herald the paper has disguised the denial of access by allowing the reader to momentarily see a partial list of opinion letters before a large ad for a subscription covers the page. If the reader chooses to close the ad without subscribing the letters page is closed and the site returns to the home page. Only the papers’ opinions are available,

The effect of this loop is the total denial of access to opinion letters by non-subscribers. This is significant since fewer and fewer conservatives subscribe to liberal newspapers – even at local levels. The net result then is that leftists candidates will have far more supporting letters read than conservative candidates. The Constitutionally protected press has found a clever new way to censorship.

Fact Check Facts

As the influence over viewers’ opinions declines, the efforts by liberal news outlets to disguise their bias and hold onto their power over public opinion increases. Perhaps the most popular of these bias disguises is the use of segment titles; such as ‘fact check’ or ‘truth check.’ These segments typically open with a statement as if it were a fact and proceed to present their ‘evidence’ to either support or discredit their opening statement. Most of these segments end with a graphic illustrating some sort of rating such as stars or Pinocchio noses or some such device. With the analysis completed and given credibility by the rating system, the host typically signs off using their most distinguished voice and signature phrase.

A recent example is from the Denver Fox affiliate. The segment was titled “Truth Check: Fact checking Bernie Sanders’ latest Colorado ad.” True to the template the host opens by stating the purpose of the segment is to pursue the truth of the content of a political ad of Bernie Sanders in which he makes several derogatory statements about the President. As viewers we are supposed to believe we are being told the underlying truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

But there is a very real difference between truth and truthful. A detailed explanation of these differences can be read here.

The Fox affiliate ‘analysis’ of Mr. Sanders’ claim that the Trump presidency is the most corrupt in history begins by acknowledging that Trump was impeached. That of course is true. But the reporter ignores the truth that the real corruption of the impeachment was by those who first created a false narrative, lied to a federal court to process their attack on the President and then ignored every precedent of law to push through a vote on articles which didn’t even include a law allegedly broken. And of course the vote was totally political. After more than 2 years and over $30 million taxpayers’ dollars spent investigating, there in fact was no corruption whatsoever associated with the President.

Then after acknowledging that Mr. Sanders’ statement is subjective and can’t technically be proven, the host adds that several associates of the President’s face prison time. But not one of those associates was ever even accused of any crime associated with the President. The segment goes on about some pardons and throws in a name as if there was any association of those convictions to the President.

The “Truth Check” of this segment is that its dishonesty can be discovered if the whole truth can be revealed.

Truth vs Truthful in the Un-Fake News

Is there a difference between a true statement and a truthful one? For decades we have all watched as lawyers and politicians dissected words into such literal meaning that we finally reached the point of being told by a United States President that different groups might well have different meanings for a word as small as “is.” It was September 13, 1998, when President Bill Clinton told a grand jury he hadn’t been lying because, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And many would argue that was the final crashing blow to honesty in the public media.

Today the news media has perfected the art of extruding the meanings of words to create impressions designed to mislead their audience in whatever direction leads toward their ideological position. Moreover, when the writer doesn’t possess enough command of the language to deflect a story with word meanings alone, the popular tactic has become simply distorting the truth by scattering a few false details to an otherwise true story or using the headline to create the first impression.

To illustrate that method, consider the following event:

A colorful city commissioner who’s policies were opposed by the local newspaper was walking through his neighborhood when he came upon a house on fire. As he approached he heard the moaning of the elderly gentleman who had fallen near the front door. The commissioner managed to force open the door and drag the nearly unconscious victim to safety. When the fire department arrived firemen made the victim comfortable and called for an ambulance while the auxiliary team offered the exhausted commissioner coffee and a doughnut.

The next day’s headlines read:

Commissioner Relaxes with coffee and donuts while neighbor’s house burns

Regardless of how accurate the paper reports the rest of the story, the headline has served its purpose – malign the commissioner. The paper then avoids reporting why the commissioner was even on the scene until at least the second paragraph. This insures fewer readers and gives the writer additional opportunity to invoke his opinion into the article mis-catagorized as news.

If or when someone complains on behalf of the commissioner the paper gets a second news cycle from the original headline by very easily making the case that the headline was true. They may even have a photo of the commissioner with a cup of coffee sitting in the yard of the burning house. The follow-up story defending the original headline (ie the article) then has the added benefit of discrediting a supporter of the commissioner and “proving” the paper is factual and – by implication – truthful. The fact is that it is true, just not truthful.Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.




Education Crisis in the HouseIn “edcation”

Grateful for Impeachment?In “edcation”

An Evil WomanIn “military, Hillary Clinton, Iran, plane crash, SEAL”

Published by patriotessays

 View all posts by patriotessaysMarch 9, 2017


Post navigation

On Black History MonthDid Founders anticipate Dark MatterEdit”Truth vs Truthful in the Un-Fake News”

Leave a Reply

Search for:



Mr WordPress on The Survey says…U.S. #2…





UP ↑Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Colorado Communists are coming for the Children

Chose any definition you like that defines the Communist Party objective and you can not possibly deny that a bill, which has already pass initial committee hearings and prepared to be rammed down the throats of every family or prospective family in Colorado, is exactly what every Communist leader would be elated to sponsor. Karl Marx, the creator of the blueprint for today’s democratic party stated it this way; the conflict between the working class and those who control them is the root of all problems in society. The solution then is for the government to replace the capitalists and thereby become the controlling body over the working class: in other words, everyone but the government.

Four loyal democratic party women have sponsored House Bill 20-1006 (HB20-1006) titled, “Early Childhood Mental Health Consultants Program.” Two of those women, state senators Petterson and Story make no claim of having any occupation whatsoever according to the public record, while representative McCluskie actually considers herself a professional “legislator” and her fellow representative Sirota simply list her occupation as a “social worker” and “administrator.”

Four government insiders who seemingly would have no means of support if they couldn’t feed at the public trough have teamed to suggest Colorado families can’t raise their own children without government supervision. What exactly is it these women of the Colorado legislature have proposed? Among the directives of their new program are state certified government workers, an army of them, intruding into your home to insure your children are being instructed for proper “behavioral outcomes” and become “culturally responsive” according to definitions not yet created.

The unlimited expansion of the state’s army of “mental health consultants” will initially be assigned to evaluate the youngest children they can find. The language of the bill does, however, identify all children from preschoolers through high school graduates. Future expansion is disguised as counseling to be made “available” to prospective families. History suggest then that the “counseling” will eventually begin with the parents of the unborn to insure access to the newborn.

God this is scary stuff!

Of course, as with all oppressive government programs since the word “security” was attached to a tax intended for retirement savings, this new program has a clever acronym to hide beneath. As the bill advances toward the time when Governor Polis will sign it into law, the acronym SMART will become popular in the media. SMART refers to a section of the law which is filled with meaningless criteria supposedly to gain acceptance by those who would doubt the need for these draconian measures to force loyalty upon a generation of indoctrinated citizens.

State Measurement for Accountability, Responsive, and Transparent Government Acting is actually the title of that section nicknamed SMART. Imagine the ‘State’ creating a system to ‘measure’ its own accountability for anything. Is there any organization less transparent than an intrusive government bureaucracy? Yet there are many adults already convinced that government really does intend to work for their best interests. And good intentions are enough regardless of which road they pave.

Unintended Consequences of Lawlessness

Is the 2 Tier Justice system affecting you?

On April 9, 2014, the House Committee on Ways and Means voted to send a letter to the Department of Justice referring former IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois G. Lerner for criminal prosecution. As indicated in the attached letter, the Committee’s nearly three-year investigation uncovered evidence of willful misconduct on the part of Ms. Lerner. Despite this fact, and for what many believe were purely partisan reasons, the prior Administration refused to review Ms. Lerner’s misconduct.”

Representatives Brady and Roskam :

When FBI director James Comey listed crime after crime committed by Hillary Clinton and then told us that no criminal charges would be brought because he decided she didn’t intend to break the law, a new and dangerous era of lawlessness was ushered in across the bureaucracies we now call ‘the deep state’. But the infamous Clinton exoneration was only the latest high profile politically connected person to escape literally any punishment for criminal activity while serving in a top level government position. The number of examples of the politically connected or the rich and powerful going unpunished for exactly the same crimes for which less connected citizens are imprisoned for years has been growing for decades.

Hillary’s exoneration followed so closely the exposure of Lois Lerner’s criminal activities at the IRS that the reality of how easily and often government insiders can go unpunished was finally recognized by even the most casual observer. Simultaneously there was stark contrast between Lerner’s and Hillary’s lack of punishment to the prison sentence ordered for Kristian Saucer. Saucer was the sailor whose cell phone was found in a waste transfer station in Groton, CT with six photos he had taken of himself while serving on a nuclear submarine. It was some accidental background of literally outdated instrumentation in his photos for which he was convicted.

So as more and more of this double standard becomes evident, the question becomes just how low on the totem can a government bureaucrat be and still get a pass on lawlessness? And more importantly, what bureaucracies are experiencing the most widespread participation?

While we are learning more about the integrity collapse within the FBI. The avalanche of corruption rolling down from the top in the FBI clearly has been addressed by replacing those most obviously involved. But the one bureau that most affects all of us seems to continue to escape scrutiny – the IRS.

Lois Lerner set the integrity bar so low by directing borderline criminal audits of organizations trying to block participation in the 2012 election, there can be no doubt that her influence spread throughout the entire IRS. She and those closest to her went unpunished. In fact few if any of the key operators in this horrific weaponizing of the Service by Obama supporters even lost their jobs. Some ‘retired’ with disgustingly lucrative benefits private workers can only dream about.

So with the precedent set and the politics of protection anchored deep within the government we now see an explosion in identity theft occurring in the form of tax refunds going to identity thieves. How is so much specific tax return personal information getting into the hands of identity thieves? The answer seems to point to the Service itself. Where else could so much information specific to a person’s tax return be so easily available on such a widespread scale as to be an epidemic of crime? Has the climate of corruption become so acceptable that instead of working to identify the source of the crimes we simply throw up our hands and pay for one of the growing number of identity theft insurance policies. Thousands have been robbed, thousands more have suffered through hard fought recovery efforts as they ran into the stonewall of all stonewalls, the IRS operator.

Having insurance against these cyber crimes, as we now call them, is fine for the short term recovery. But what about a longer term solution? So long as we continue to expand the 2 tier justice system, to turn our heads away from the lawlessness by the politically powerful and their underlings committing obvious crimes, the more divided our justice system will become.

While only about one-third of people responding to popular polls now continue to fail to understand the crimes and political ambitions underlying the efforts to overthrow the President, those who have been most involved have yet to be brought to justice. Why? It would seem that their co-conspirators holding offices within the government and their supporters in the media are able to threaten and intimidate and even “impeach” anyone threatening to collapse this network that has for so long enjoyed living above the law.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial of Trump, there have been dozens of people breaking dozens of laws in an effort to remain so powerful they can continue to live above the laws under which the rest of us must suffer consequences.

Environmental Un-Education 70 Years of “Stupid”

As President Trump continues unwinding the web of climate regulations that have been spun in the name of saving the world for nearly 70 years, some of the outrageous claims too often taught by too many schools by notable people undeserving of their stature and respect have come to our attention.

Political homogeneity is problematic –

  • it biases research and teaching
  • reduces academic credibility

Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause students to believe that conservatism is deviant.

In the aftermath of the hysterical performance by teenager Greta Thunberg before the United Nations, much has been written about her background and the environmental education that literally created her fear of the impending end of the civilized world. There is little doubt that she is not alone in believing that catastrophic climate change is impending, that her generation will never survive to old age and that the situation is clearly the fault of the current leaders of the world.

A study by Brooklyn College associate professor Mitchell Langbert has exposed perhaps the underlying cause for much of the absolute fear of dying from climate chaos demonstrated so publicly by Thunberg and so many others in her generation. This fear of the future has even reared its ugly influence in the United States House of Representatives through the voice of representative Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez; a young women whose biased education has been put on display nationwide.

Langbert assimilated political information about Ph.D. professors on tenure track at 51 of the 66 liberal arts colleges as identified by US News in the magazine’s 2017 listing of such colleges. The exhaustive study and the underlying basis of the research and results has been published on several web sites. The entire study prints out over 30 pages and contains much detail. In the interest of reducing the shear volume of this study, this article is simply a chronological list of key headlines predicting doomsday in various ways.

Exposure of continuing poor quality education practices will hopefully lead to serious evaluation of critical education programs. One such example is the student loan program. Originally developed by the Department of Defense to recruit scientists and engineers, the student loan program has become so exploited that today it is little more than a massive money tree supporting the ever expanding tenure guaranteed employment program that protects the problems so obviously exposed by the Langbert study.

One of the most startling facts revealed by the study is that the ratio of professors identifying as democrat (liberal) versus republican (conservative) in the area of environmental education is 108 liberals to 0 conservatives. Zero tenure track professors in this area available to present a balanced position! Is there any wonder how young people like Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez become so “uneducated.”

The list below only includes a headline and a very limited recap of some of the content of the articles. Every article can be found online in its entirety. The Langbert study is also available on line and summarized in several locations.

1967 Dr Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University Dire Famine by 1975 Suggest involuntary birth control and sterilizing agent in foods and drinking water Catholic Church should be pressured into compliance for birth control speaking at University of Texas

ref: Salt Lake City Tribune 11/17/1967

1969 Dr Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University Death in Bue Steam by 1989 Everyone will disappear in pollution caused Cloud of Blue Steam in 20 years

source: The New York Times 8/10/1969

1970 James P. Lodge Jr, Boulder Colorado Ice Age by 2000 Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Air pollution to obliterate the sun and cause an ice age by 2000 Demand for cooling water will boil dry the rivers and streams of the United States: speaking at Institute of Environmental Sciences

ref: Boston Globe 4/16/1970

1970 Dr Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Univ. Oceans dead as Lake Erie by 1980 America to ration water by 1974 and Food will be rationed by 1980 at University of California / World Affairs Council of Inland Southern California

source: Redlands Daily Facts 10/6/1970

1971 Dr. S.L.Rasool, NASA Disastrous Ice Age in 50 or 60 years Atmospheric dust to block sun – drop global temperature by 6 degrees Writing in the journal Science

ref: Washington Post 7/9/1971

1972 Brown University, Dept of Geological Sciences Ice Age by 2070 A conference of 42 Top American and European (climate) Investigators concluded climate deterioration of a magnitude never before experienced by civilized mankind

source: letter to President of United States 12/3/1972

1974 Columbia Univ. and European climatologists Ice Age Coming Fast Drs George and Helena Kukla say space satellites indicate snow and ice coverage up 12% -World temperatures continuing to decline since 1935 t0 1955 ice increasing faster

report published in The Guardian 1/29/1974

1974 Time magazine / Decades of Cooling – No End in Sight Growing number scientists agree. Signs include “unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice…” Since 1940’s mean global temperature dropped about 2.7deg F

source: Time magazine Science 6/24/1974

1974 T.M. Donahue, Univ of Mich. Earth in Great Peril as O-Zone disappears Michigan scientists agree list of “horrors” is long – could send mankind back 100 million years testimony before

source:Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences January 29,1975

1976 Stephen Schneider, climatologist – Boulder, Colorado Famine Food reserves insufficient to sustain life during coming ice age National Academy of Sciences report 1975 – famines are coming due to colder temps

source: The New York Times book review 7/18/1976

1978 International Team of Specialists No End in Sight to Global Cooling German, Japanese and American specialists found data indicates cooling to continue

published in journal Nature, December 15, 1978

1988 James Hansen, NASA 1988 hottest year in 130 will bring droughts Claims “greenhouse effect” is here. (Temp Data was later proven to be falsified) Claimed sea levels will rise from 1 to 6 feet during the 1990’s in testimony in Congressional hearings on Mid-Western dought 12/12/1988

source: The Miami News 6/24/1988

1988 Mr Hussein Shihab Maldives to be Underwater by 2010 . Drinking water supplies to dry up by 1992 Mr. Hussein Shihab, Environmental Affairs Director: Ocean rise will be catastrophic United Nations Environmental Project plans to study the problem

source: The Canberra Times 9/26/1988

1989 James Hansen NYC West Side Hwy Underwater by 2010 Predicts excessive heat will lead to water shortages, more crime, fewer birds, etc… …

source: interview 10/23/2001

2000 Dr David Viner, senior research scientist, Univ. of East Anglia . No more Snow Based on models, Snow will be a rare and exciting event

source: The Independent 3/20/2000 reprinted by The Guardian

2004 Pentagon chiefs brief President Bush Britain will be “Siberian” by 2020

Report says major European cities will be underwater, mega-droughts, famine and wide spread rioting will spread across the world

source: The Observer / The Guardian 2/21/2004

2008 Seth Borenstein, AP Science writer NASA scientist: We’re Toast James Hensen, NASA ( yes he is still employed ) says Arctic ice is disappearing “exactly the way we said it would.” Artic will be ice free in 5 to 10 years

source: Associated Press – 6/24/2008

2008 AL Gore, author, North Polar Ice Completely Gone in 5 Years Making this prediction at COP15 Climate Conference December 14, 2008

source: WUMT tv and Daily Mail online et el: 12/14/2008

2009 Prince Charles Just 96 Months to Save the World Richard Dimblely lecture at St. James Palace, “without coherent financial incentives and disincentives er have just 96 months” to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystems collapse…”

source: The Independent 10/20/2009

2009 Gordon Brown, P.M., U.K. Fewer than 50 Days to Save Planet PM’s opening statement to Paris Climate Summit

source: The Independent 10/20/2009

2013 Prof. Peter Wadhams, Ice-free Arctic in 2 years – Methane Catastrophe Release of massive methane pulse from melting ice could trigger costs equaling entire world’s GDP. Loss of permafrost will destabilize climate system around the world

source: journal Nature 7/24/2013

2013 U.S.Navy Dept of Oceanography Ice Free Arctic by 2016 Research project funded by the US Dept of Energy

source: The Guardian 12/9/2013 reporter Nafeez Ahmed

2014 Laurent Fabius, Frence Foreign Minister 500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos Appearing with John Kerry, Secretary of State in Washington, D.C.

Source: Washington Examiner 5/14/2014

And yet the sun came up today… … …

Education Crisis in the House

With the media intent on covering the activity in Washington surrounding the conflict between the President and the Democratic Party, we are being given an opportunity to witness our government leaders unfiltered as they take their turns in the spotlight. But is this a good thing for many of them?

Remember the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 25, 2010 concerning the U.S. military installation on the island of Guam, Hank Johnson (D,GA) said to Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize”.

That comment would have been comical if Johnson had not proceeded it with several questions about the overall dimensions of the island and even asking the admiral if he recalled how many square miles there were to Guam.

Johnson’s moronic comments made entertaining media for a few days; much like his comments about imagining a world without balloons during a debate over renewal of funding for defense department helium. But while he continues to win reelection and serve in the house, he is no longer alone in making a fool of himself by trying to sound more intelligent than he is. So sad!

Regardless of your position for or against the President, if you have the ability to read and understand above elementary school level, you have to be concerned for the quality of our government after 50 years of decline of U.S. education. During these past few days,the number of representatives who very clearly demonstrated their lack of understanding of the Constitution was seriously disturbing. These are our government leaders. Yet they speak with such poor grammar they would be admonished by every one of my long since retired middle school teachers; including shop teacher Mr. Rose.

One representative addressing Obstruction of Congress was trying to sound intelligent by using the standard practice of speaking slowly and occasionally pausing as if to be thinking ahead. What she was attempting to explain was how the Constitution identifies the 3 branches of government as “co-equal”. Her comments tell us she has no understanding of the meaning of the English language word “equal”. Additionally, she demonstrated no knowledge of the history of the United States regarding the relationships the three branches have had for over 200 years. And most importantly she isn’t aware of the constitutional process for resolving disputes. Her ignorant rhetoric is widely accepted as intelligent on one side of the aisle that divides the House into two main party groups. So sad!

The proof of the depth of such widespread ignorance is in the fact that during this three-and-a-half year drama the majority party leadership have chosen to refuse to join the President in asking the third branch to rule one way or another. Although these inter-branch disputes have historically been resolved by the constitutionally outlined process, this Congress simply decided they were more “equal” than the Administration, therefore whatever Congress ordered the Administration must do. Otherwise – according to one political party – the President is Obstructing Congress. So wrong and so sad!

Education in Congress

Education on Review So Sad

Regardless of your position for or against the President, if you have the ability to read and understand above elementary school level, you have to be concerned for the quality of our government after the 40 years of decline of U.S. education. The number of representatives who very clearly demonstrated their lack of understanding of the Constitution was seriously disturbing. These government leaders spoke with such poor grammar they would be admonished by every one of my middle school teachers; including shop teacher Mr. Rose.

One representative addressing Obstruction of Congress was trying to sound intelligent by attempting to explain the Constitution identifies the 3 branches of government as “co-equal.” She then contradicts herself stating that because the President didn’t yield his branch to a congressional committee request, he was obstructing Congress. Her comments tell us she has no understanding of the meaning of the term “co-equal.” She demonstrates no knowledge of the history of the United States regarding the relationships the three branches have had for over 200 years. And most importantly she isn’t aware of the constitutional process for resolving disputes. Her ignorance is not isolated. So sad!

In this three-and-a-half year drama the majority leadership have chosen to refuse to join the President in asking the third branch to rule one way or another. Although these inter-branch disputes have historically been resolved by the constitutionally outlined process, this Congress simply decided they were more “equal” than the Administration, therefore whatever Congress ordered the Administration must do. Otherwise – according to one political party – the President is Obstructing Congress. So wrong and so sad!

The Emissions Lie is Costly

To point out the dishonesty of Colorado’s emissions testing system may well force me into the company of another great heretic, Galileo. But it seems time someone identify just some of those actions by the state which are directly opposed to the state’s claim for the need for this high speed revenue lane into the pockets of political donors. Moreover, the claims of the need for emissions testing are in direct contradiction to nearly every single “solution” to automobile pollution the Colorado Department of Transportation has undertaken since the passage of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).

To understand the relevance of the reference to Galileo one needs look no further than any current media coverage of the “consensus of scientists” which have chastised anyone who dares to question the scientific evidence – proven to be falsified- to support the issue of “man-caused” global warming.

Now I digress for a moment to emphasize that I am not disputing global climate change, I am only pointing out that the much of the data has been falsified.

So it happens that some 400 years ago Galileo was tried and sentenced to life under house arrest for suggesting the Earth orbited around the Sun. His suggestion and the science he offered in support contradicted the “consensus” of astronomers and church leaders. Of course we know now the “consensus” was absolutely wrong.

Truth has a long history of standing in contradiction to beliefs. Today the platitudes supporting emissions testing as a means to achieve clean air are as misguided as those 16th century religious scholars citing the Bible as evidence of Earth’s position in the universe. Yet these statements of faith that sound so good as debate points are not even considered valid by the same government that happily collects emissions testing fees under the banner of cleaner air. If government leaders actually believed auto emissions were a serious source of the Denver area’s poor air quality most of the staff at the planning division of the Department of Transportation would have been fired more than a decade ago.

To illustrate just one of several egregious examples of the Colorado Department of Transportation acting in direct opposition to the concept of reducing automobile pollution look no further than any new roadway expansion project. What you see is a toll lane reserved for the very few who can afford the adjustable tolls. Worse still, these tolls are adjusted higher and higher during the exact times when the automobile traffic is peaking and slowing.  It doesn’t take much thinking to understand that thousands of idling cars stalled in traffic jams will certainly produce more exhaust emissions than if those same cars were able to move quickly along and reach their destination where the engines are shut off completely. The extra lanes could move more cars in less time but instead their purpose is to generate toll dollars. What is even more insulting to everyone paying any attention at all is that Colorado has given away many of these valuable highway lanes to private enterprises. Under these so called public-private collaborations the lane operators are able to put emphasis on profit well before any concerns about reducing air pollution.

As for the testing itself, since its inception in the 1980’s when lead-based gas was being phased out and oxygenated gasoline was not yet developed for widespread distribution, testing has come and gone. State after state has recognized the process was no longer of any value. A 2013 editorial in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington urged ending the testing a year and a half earlier than its original ending date in 2020. The Spokane area began testing in 1985 when the air quality in the area was ranked among the worst in the country. Much of the pollution was known to be from inefficient wood burning stoves. Nevertheless, city officials tried improving the air quality index numbers by reducing downtown parking, adding turn lanes and even moving monitoring stations to less busy intersections with fewer idling cars. Limited progress was made until the 1991 introduction of oxygenated gas and improved emissions recirculation systems in engines finally started the upturn in air quality. As the number of vehicles from the 1980’s became insignificant, legislators began shifting emissions testing revenue to the general fund where money, “wisely spent to facilitate traffic movement might well-reduce emissions more than testing, which itself cleans nothing.” (Spokesman-Review)

Money “wisely spent” might well improve Denver air quality but it seems that spending money wisely will continue to be nothing but a pipe dream until the current leaders of Colorado’s government are replaced with thinkers and planners who put citizens needs before bureaucrats’ bonuses.