Dr. Carrie de Moor, In her own words

Dr. Carrie de Moor is running as a Republican for Texas Senate SD30. She is running as a grassroots conservative, but does her history match the campaign rhetoric? The following presents her own words in the form of videos, posts, donations and official associations.

Would Dr. de Moor protect your Medical Freedom rights?

Did Dr. de Moor mock people that refused to wear a mask?

Why did Dr. de Moor attack grassroots hero Dr. Peter McCullough?

Is Dr. de Moor even a conservative?

As chair of the American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (https://www.acep.org/aawep/), de Moor wrote about and promoted a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) event (https://www.acep.org/aawep/newsroom/april2021/chairs-corner), oversaw the passage of ER-related gun free zone resolutions, two pro-abortion resolutions and perhaps a pandering ban on choke holds resolution.

Resolutions: https://www.acep.org/aawep/resources/aaweps-resolutions

Why is a “conservative” chair residing over the passage of gun free zone resolutions and pro-abortion resolutions?

Notice that the following resolution includes language that extends beyond the ER and encourages gun free zones in the general public.

Links to meeting minutes chaired by Dr. de Moor can be found here: https://www.acep.org/aawep/meetings/

Did Dr. de Moor help fund this woke mission?

Yes, she was a top donor to the Texas PAC of this organization as shown in Transparency USA. She had a $1200 donation as recently as April 2023.

Link: https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/committee/texas-college-of-emergency-physicians-pac-16755-gpac/contributors?cycle=2015-to-now

During COVID madness, did Dr. de Moor align with conservative grassroots fighters? Or was she strikingly counter to the grassroots?

Was Dr. de Moor aligned with Trump in mid-to-late 2020, as her campaign claims?

Not really. Trump did wear a mask for his hospital visit during that time but generally spoke out strongly against masks.

Did Dr. de Moor show discernment with vax promotion for children?

Why was Dr. de Moor concerned with lost potential to “mandate vaccines” when the feds stopped paying for vaccines?

Is Dr. de Moor associated with the liberal Texas Medical Assocation?

Yes, she was on the Texas Medical Association board of trustees from 2016-2018 and has donated thousands of dollars to the organization.

TMA has a lobbying arm that is very liberal on issues like vaccine mandates and child genital mutilation.

Source: https://www.transparencyusa.org/tx/transaction-search?q=carrie%20de%20moor&type=c,e&cycle=2015-to-now

Transparency USA wrote this about the strategies employed by the Texas Medical Association to install Liberal Republican legislators.

Don’t miss this line:

“Their [Texas Medical Association] strategy is to solidify support of doctors serving in the legislature…. who will do their bidding on issues that many Republican primary voters oppose.”

Source: https://www.transparencyusa.org/article/texas-medical-association-liberal-republican

Does the Texas Medical Association support vaccine mandates?

Yes, In the 87th legislature, they fought against the legislation that would ban employer vaccine mandates. Current Board of Trustees member, John Carlo, voiced this radical position on vaccine mandates in front of the Texas House:

Why does Dr. de Moor promote endorsements from liberal friends?

At the time of this writing, only 3 endorsements show on de Moors website, and two additional endorsements were posted to her x.com account.

Here is one example: https://x.com/cdemoormd/status/1742725421588713594?s=20

Angela’s social media shows that she is pro-abortion, for gun control, advocates for vaccines and supported the Democrat challenger against DeSantis. It is interesting how closely this celebrated endorser matches the values and actions shown by de Moor when she served as Chair of the American Association of Women Emergency Physicians from 2020 to late 2022 (discussed above) … gun control, pro-abortion, vaccine promotion… same values as those promoted by the organization de Moor chaired.

Likes posts that support Gun Control... “we won’t be silent in voting for gun control”.

Likes posts that promote and accept abortion.

Likes a post supporting a Democrat running against DeSantis from Governor.

Another liberal-leaning endorsement:

Paul’s social media shows support for Joe Biden and ridicules alternative treatments that compete with the vax. How is this a worthwhile endorsement for a supposed conservative candidate? Obviously, de Moor cannot control who endorses her, but why would de Moor post this as a celebrated endorsement?

Likes posts supporting Democrat Joe Biden.

Replies advocating the vax and misrepresenting alternative treatments.

Why is Dr. de Moor supported by a Democrat voter turned Republican (for election convenience)?

Another anti-Trump, pro-vax mandate, Biden voter that strongly supports de Moor. Her campaign manager shows approval for Democrat voter turned Republican Matt Rostami’s recommendation.

Why does Dr. de Moor’s website present messages that are inconsistent with her own words and professional history?

A quick look at de Moor’s current website gives the appearance of a conservative that is for medical freedom, for gun rights, against abortion, and against DEI. But… nothing in her history supports that she actually holds these positions. In fact, her history is littered with the opposite as shown by her own posts and official associations.




The facts about Dr. de Moor, in her own words… is de Moor a conservative?

  • Enthusiastically promoted vaccines and masks from 2020-2022.
  • Mocked people that refused to wear a mask, recently stating her expectation that “patriots should have thicker skin.”
  • Enthusiastically encouraged vaccines for children in 2021-2022.
  • Recently attacked integrity of grassroots hero Dr. Peter McCullough.
  • Supported “proof of vaccination” for international travel.
  • Social media post shows concern with lost potential to “mandate vaccines” when the feds stopped funding vaccinations.
  • Served as Chair for woke American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP).
  • Donated more than $5000 to woke AAWEP, donated $1200 as recently as April of 2023.
  • AAWEP passed “gun free zones” resolution during de Moor’s tenure as Chair (Oct 2021).
  • AAWEP passed “abortion is not a crime” resolutions during de Moor’s tenure as Chair (Oct 2022).
  • As Chair of AAWEP, promoted Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) activities. (April 2021 Newsletter)
  • Served on the Board of Trustees (2016-2018) for liberal Texas Medical Association (TMA) who historically support liberal Republicans that will “do their bidding on issues that many Republican voters oppose.”
  • Donated thousands to liberal TMA, donated $1875 as recently as May of 2023.
  • Promotes endorsements from liberal, Democrat-supporting friends that show support for gun control, abortion, vaccine promotion, Democrats and even Joe Biden.

Texas Lies and Fear

Texas Lies and Fear

Recently Texas got busted inflating the positive case results with CV19. This time the inexplicable increase was blamed on “computer errors”. A previous increase in positive results was engineered by including possible test results with confirmed test results. And before that positive cases naturally rose with the increase in testing. All along Texas, and Texas leaders have been instigating fear and panic based on positive test results.

A few months back when lockdowns were initiated, Abbott was more reasonable and stated flatly that we would expect a rise in cases as more testing occurred. He said we would monitor CV19 based on hospitalization and deaths and pointed to those as the metrics to make decisions based on. This made sense. However, he quickly changed strategies and started looking at cases. Cases are more easily manipulated and the death rate was flattening.

You can’t convince intelligent people that a 0.65% death rate (per CDC) virus warrants shutting down lives, liberty and freedom. That’s what you are asking when you support draconian measures like in NZ. People look at that and think… “dang, i don’t want to be dragged out of my house and tossed into a quarantine facility, no matter how nice they make it sound.” Consider the world’s out of proportion response when comparing CV19’s estimated 0.68% death rate to the common flu with a death rate of 0.11%.

In reality, the CV19 death rate is much lower. Birx demanded deaths that were not caused by CV19 to be reported as CV19 deaths. So we don’t even know the real number with regards to deaths because of CV19. It may very well be the same or less than the flu. We do know that Birx bought a higher death rate… per her demands and the CARES act, hospitals were paid $39k more per CV19 death. Money talks.

People are waking up to the fact that it’s not really that deadly. It’s taken months to work through the misleading models presented early that showed a doomsday of 2 million deaths. These were presented by trusted “experts” at the time. These were either outright lies or incredibly bad experts. These numbers panicked the people. But, that misinformation is finally starting to fade from memory.

To compensate for the lack of deaths we are now given new horror stories and new fear… a new boogeyman. This new boogeyman consists of serious conditions that fall short of death. More fear mongering. New statistics and “science” to debate ad nauseum and without enough data. Just like the lack of overwhelming death testimonies, these stories are in direct contradiction to what our own life experience shows… and that is that most people we know that have had it either barely knew they had it or experience a few days of flu-like symptoms… only to fully and completely recover after some rest.

A high percentage of deaths attributed to CV19 were people above 80 years old, many had multiple morbidities when they died. It’s very likely that the majority of these cases were older people that actually died of something else and were mislabeled as a CV19 death due to Birx’s mandate. We don’t know that answer, we are not given that breakdown of deaths caused by CV19 and deaths that incidentally had CV19. So, we remain divided on that point.

This virus panic would be over if we did not have mandated masks across the country. The mask is the only real-world evidence for most people that this virus exists at the level of danger that the media and politicians indicate. It’s a brilliant exercise in gaslighting. No real day-to-day evidence of a pandemic, but look all the people are wearing a scary medical mask so it must be a scary virus even though little personal evidence confirms that belief for most people. The data and science doesn’t come close to supporting the crazy measures of isolation and lockdown. Have you seen the recent case, hospitalization and death curves? They show a standard disease progression and we are on the right of the bell curve. It’s all over but the lying at this point.

Further, these panicked people and pseudo-scientists ignore and ridicule every treatment that comes along. They don’t even give them a fair shake. You would think that if the virus is so deadly and scary that the attitude would be that we should focus very hard to iron out any potential issues with a treatment in the interest of a solution. But nope… they go straight to the bottom of the debate pyramid and attack honest doctors personally because they cannot attack the success that they are having with patients. It is obvious that we are being forced into a holding pattern for a vaccine. Who can’t see this?

Here is the kicker! This untested vaccine will be 1000x more dangerous than any of the treatments that have been rejected citing safety concerns. This is a matter of circumstance. The testing is cut way short and is full of conflicts of interests.

The world is full of insane control freaks these days. From politicians making tyranical decress, to your neighbor at the grocery store yelling at you to put on a useless mask. Insanity is the right word. Insanity is being encouraged. Fire is being yelled in the theatre.

Thankfully, the trend seems to be moving away from this paranoia and back toward normalcy, science and logic. Recently, people have been talking about all the lies and deceit and simple inconsistencies in the demands placed on people. Outside of the Facebook echo chamber the world is real and alive, most people are not irrationally hiding in their basement… at least in my area.

This entire chapter of terrorized people is an embarrassment and a house of cards that will fall hard when the time comes. Until then, take off your scientifically useless mask and choose to live your life again, instead of living in fear of something that is very unlikely to harm you.

They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1933-45

They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of “They Thought They Were Free” First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

“What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

“You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”

“Those,” I said, “are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’”

“Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

“Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late.”

“Yes,” I said.

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

“But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

“I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.”

“And the judge?”

“Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.”

I said nothing.

“Once the war began,” my colleague continued, “resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.

“Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it.”

Copyright notice: Excerpt from pages 166-73 of They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press. (Footnotes and other references included in the book may have been removed from this online version of the text.)


Milton Mayer
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45
©1955, 1966, 368 pages
Paper $19.00 ISBN: 0-226-51192-8

The Chains Set Lightly

The Chains Set Lightly

It was a dreadful night when I heard word
The news said the trusted man was stirred
To steal away the bullets and lead
And lead the march against the free instead

He held up high some crazy men
And claimed it wouldn’t happen again
If the lawful would just sacrifice
And surrender the means to guard their life

Trade their liberty and property
For a fading glimpse of security
The devils game since the dawn of man
Divide, disarm to conquer the land

Asked to bow, submit, and put all faith
In lies, and liars and apostate
There is little left for honest men
Wolves smell blood, the snakes crawl in

The criminals all rejoice in words
That shield bad deeds from justice swords
Left to strike without repose
Innocent death is unopposed

Tyrants whistle a cold dark tune
Pleased that history lost to time so soon
Now nothing stands between freedom and hell
Bury the past in the wishing well

With no walls to quell the evil tide
The man of sin, four horses ride
The luke warm cower for lack of will
The old republic abandoned and still

Through ages might makes right the lie
That enslaves the ones they pacify
With other’s riches fleeced for need
Crouch down and lick the hands that feed

The center does not hold with time
Truths expose the serpent’s rhyme
A whisper wounds the golden hall
The meek push on as kingdoms fall

As centuries roll across the land
The scholars try to comprehend
How men had risen above the kings
Then fallen back to suffering

They stood upon freedom’s shore
Where greed drove the fight for more
Of gifts and legacies unearned
Godless and broke, their liberty burned

Since ashes mask that final day
New words were made, designed to say
The careful lies that fool the “free”
To embrace their unarmed destiny

And the chains set lightly
A distant flame burns brightly

An original poem by Davy Crockett, LittlePuppyDogs.com

Copyright (c) 2020, LittlePuppyDogs.com. All Rights Reserved.

The Worship of the Word “We”

The Worship of the Word “We”

The following are excerpts from Anthem, Ayn Rand. In this final chapter the main character awakens and escapes from the hell of a collective dystopian society to claim freedom as an individual. The dystopian society worshipped the word “we” and had banned the word “I”. 

These are the last things before me. And as I stand here at the door of glory, I look behind me for the last time. I look upon the history of men, which I have learned from the books, and I wonder. It was a long story, and the spirit which moved it was the spirit of man’s freedom. But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man’s freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else.

At first, man was enslaved by the gods. But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled.

But then he gave up all he had won, and fell lower than his savage beginning.

What brought it to pass? What disaster took their reason away from men? What whip lashed them to their knees in shame and submission? The worship of the word “We.”

When men accepted that worship, the structure of centuries collapsed about them, the structure whose every beam had come from the thought of some one man, each in his day down the ages, from the depth of some one spirit, such as spirit existed but for its own sake. Those men who survived—those eager to obey, eager to live for one another, since they had nothing else to vindicate them—those men could neither carry on, nor preserve what they had received. Thus did all thought, all science, all wisdom perish on earth. Thus did men—men with nothing to offer save their great numbers—lose the steel towers, the flying ships, the power wires, all the things they had not created and could never keep. Perhaps, later, some men had been born with the mind and the courage to recover these things which were lost; perhaps these men came before the Councils of Scholars. They answered as I have been answered—and for the same reasons.

But I still wonder how it was possible, in those graceless years of transition, long ago, that men did not see whither they were going, and went on, in blindness and cowardice, to their fate. I wonder, for it is hard for me to conceive how men who knew the word “I,” could give it up and not know what they had lost. But such has been the story, for I have lived in the City of the damned, and I know what horror men permitted to be brought upon them.

Perhaps, in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender that word. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out in protest and in warning. But men paid no heed to their warning. And they, those few, fought a hopeless battle, and they perished with their banners smeared by their own blood. And they chose to perish, for they knew. To them, I send my salute across the centuries, and my pity.

Theirs is the banner in my hand. And I wish I had the power to tell them that the despair of their hearts was not to be final, and their night was not without hope. For the battle they lost can never be lost. For that which they died to save can never perish. Through all the darkness, through all the shame of which men are capable, the spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep, but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through. And man will go on. Man, not men.

Anthem, Chapter 12, Ayn Rand

Of Tyrants, Lies and Decrees

Of Tyrants, Lies and Decrees

Tyrants.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis

On April 9, 2019 tyrants in New York City declared a state of emergency and ordered free people to be injected or face fines. I do not use the term “tyranny” lightly.

The decree issued on this date made it a crime to simply live. By this order, citizens must receive an injection to lawfully live in their community. To coerce free people against their will is tyranny.

tyrants1

Lies.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

The case for this tyranny is justified by lies. The hysteria and danger posed by measles is irrational, as history shows. The fundamental claim that the MMR vaccine is safe is scientifically false.

Unlike other approved drugs, the MMR testing did not use a double blind placebo control during clinical trials. Astoundingly, all of the childhood vaccines have been allowed to skip this step.

This means that safety of the MMR is not known to the degree that all other approved drugs require. Specifically, the MMR clinical studies do not reveal: (1) unbiased adverse reaction results and (2) causation of reported reactions. This is a gaping hole in the safety profile of the MMR vaccine!

lies2b

Ignoring this and many other deficiencies with regards to safety testing, the commissioner appeals to her “expert” status as a pediatrician, while making blanket statements that the MMR is safe. Only offering claims and expecting trust because she was once a pediatrician.

lies0

Further, like all tyrants, she feels the need to dehumanize the opposition. There are many legitimate questions raised by the opposition which if heard would disrupt the false sense of security created by unfounded proclamations of an “expert”.

lies1

Of course, the Commissioner refuses to address the following:

  1. Do the “anti-vaxxers” generally have personal experiences with vaccine injury because they too were once “pro-vaxxers” and followed the advice of their pediatrician to their child’s detriment? Would that not make them “ex-vaxxers”? Is that term too revealing of truth?
  2. Do these “ex-vaxxers” point out that the MMR is not double blind placebo control (DBPC) tested during clinical trials like all other approved drugs require? Do they point out that the DBPC is the gold standard of safety testing and childhood vaccines skipped that step?
  3. Do these “ex-vaxxers” point people to the VAERS system where they can review reported vaccine injuries on their own? Do the tell people that last year alone 60k+ vaccine injuries were reported and 400+ vaccine related deaths?
  4. Do these “ex-vaxxers” ask people to consider the dramatic rise in Autism from 1 in 10,000 to the current 1 in 45? Do they point out how double blind placebo control (DBPC) testing doesn’t exist for childhood vaccines? Do they point out that without DBPC then autism causation is not known.
  5. Do these “ex-vaxxers” point out that there is special court that protects Pharma from vaccine liability when they cause vaccine injuries? Do they relate the fact that $4B has been paid out to vaccine injured through this court?

Decrees.

“An unjust law in itself is an act of violence.” – Mahatma Gandhi

The decree demands that adults and children be vaccinated within 48 hours or face a fine of $1000 to $2000.

The bottom line: this decree makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens. 

decrees1

In order to make  “living life without injection” a crime a claim must be made that doing so violates some existing law.

decrees2

The decree claims that the act of “living your life without injection” is a “prohibited act”.

decrees3

Once this slight of hand is accepted, then the penalties for “living life without injection” are codified in 3.11.

decrees4a

decrees4b

Of Tyrants, Lies and Decrees.

“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.” ― Lysander Spooner

Regardless of one’s stance on vaccines it must be apparent that forcing injections is unwise. Even if one believes that the current vaccines are extremely safe and effective then you must consider how future leaders might abuse this newfound tool. The dystopian potential of forced injections is infinite.

“A well informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

References

Click to access ICAN-Reply.pdf

Click to access health-code-article3.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

The “President Makes Laws” according to Scholastic Teaching Resources

So what is the correct answer to this reading comprehension worksheet question?

1

Where is the “None of the Above” choice? None of these answers are true. I assume that the “correct” answer is supposed to be (C).

Problem #1, the “correct” answer is a lie. The president does not create laws. This is a basic premise of the Constitution that clearly divides the federal government into a legislative, judicial and executive branch. This misinforms kids about an important division of power that our republic was founded under.

Problem #2, it implies presidents and kings are similar in ways they are not. The phrasing of the question is also problematic. Yes, it is intellectually fair to compare an American president to a king. However, looking for similarities is not the best way to draw distinctions between the two. Especially, when they require students to pick a similarity that is a complete lie. It should be a clear difference: Kings may make laws. American Presidents do not.

Problem #3, encourages confusion with “decisions” and “laws”. The worksheet portion of the lesson was not as bold and simply stated that the president makes decisions. That is very different from making laws. In order to choose (C), the student must assume that “making decisions” is no different than “making laws”.

Here is the piece that was to be read for reading comprehension which discussed the differences between a king and a president.

2

Scholastic Teaching Resources should pull this lesson immediately and make a public apology for teaching anti-American ideas to our students.

The Climate Change Emperor has no Clothes, just a Video

The Climate Change Emperor has no Clothes, just a Video

What started as almost a point of agreement with the left resulted in an unraveling of a Climate Change “expert”.  The following outlines my brief encounter with Katherine Hayhoe.

I ran across a rare agreeable point made by socialist gun-grabber Beto O’Rourke today. Apparently, we share an interest in wind power. It is an excellent idea in my mind too! My interest is in it’s potential for supplement or off-the-grid energy. However, I knew my support for wind power would be twisted to imply a support for taxes on breathing. So, I added a comment to clarify that I only agreed with the idea of wind power, nothing else.

h1

This led to numerous opinions, insults, religious projections and consensus science propaganda. I eventually posted ice core data and asked for an explanation. The ice core data indicates a pattern of climate change on earth showing changes over hundreds of thousands of years. This fluctuation is periodic and extends well before humans roamed the earth. Here is one version of the data found online:

IceCores1

Let me also say that I really haven’t spent much time on this issue but I do find this data interesting as it seems to add reasonable, if not significant doubt, to the idea that human’s cause global warming or significant CO2 effects.

I’d really like to know how this ice core data is brushed aside to make room for the “human-caused” theories. Honest question #1.

At that point, an “expert” on climate change was tagged on Twitter and she entered the discussion. Her website expresses a friendly, “Hi, I’m a Climate Scientist” to eliminate all doubt of her expertise. Ms. Hayhoe suggested that I watch a video that would answer my question.

h2

So I did. After watching her video, the question about ice core data was not answered and her explanation had inspired another question.h6

I would really like to know how she can apply the “conservation of energy” law to volcanos and other natural possibilities but ignore that humans are also in the same closed system. Honest question #2.

Wikipedia: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.

Here is the video, please let me know if you think it answers my question about the ice core data or if my “conservation of energy” question was uncalled for.

As you can see from the following screen captures, links to videos and insults is what I received from this expert after she initiated the conversation with “Davy”.  Here is the dead end conversation on the ice core data. Interesting “rinse, repeat” strategy of Twitter engagement, “watch my propaganda, watch it again.”

h3

Honestly, I did not expect such obfuscation. Pure propaganda is what I got for honest questions. I truly believed that I would be shown inconclusive consensus science stuff, if not a fact or two. Here was her final request to “rinse, repeat”.

h4She has since blocked “Davy” on Twitter solely for this exchange. There was no other exchange whatsoever with her or her Twitter page at any time since or before.

2018-08-24_12-34-22

I initially assumed there were easy answers to my questions. I assumed that she would easily embarrass me with consensus science magic, especially on Beto’s page with all the socialist cheerleaders watching.

Of course there is always a chance that the emperor has no clothes and thus can only respond with confusing and misleading videos and insults. Perhaps that was the case here. Experts that actually have solid fundamentals based on facts don’t bully and degrade others for asking questions that ever so slightly challenge their hypothesis. Perhaps propaganda experts do that, real scientist don’t need to.

I would still like to know:

  • How the ice core data is explained away to make room for the “human caused” hypothesis
  • How the “law of conservation of energy” can be selectively used in her video to discredit volcanos, etc because they can’t create heat in a closed system; but the same law of physics doesn’t apply to human-caused warming when volcanos and humans are part of the exact same closed system.

Perhaps she’s on to something though with “conservation of energy”. However, she will have to drop her political agenda. If her theory regarding the law of conservation of energy is applied without bias then the cause must be external. External is also implied by the ice core data and it’s hundreds of thousands of years untouched by human hands.

Interesting exchange, nonetheless. It reminded me of a quote by the late, great Michael Crichton.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

-Michal Crichton

Why do you need an “assault” rifle?

Why do you need an “assault” rifle?

This question often comes up when considering attempts by Congress to pass unconstitutional gun ban legislation. The answer, given any honest historical context, is self-evident.

The first sentence of this year’s legislation indicates the intention:

To regulate the importation, manufacture, possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons, and for other purposes.

Subsequent sections include long lists of rifles, pistols and shotguns that are intended to be unlawfully infringed on by this legislation. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text)

AR-15 use for “Assault” is Statistically Insignificant

First of all, an AR-15 is labeled “assault rifle” for effect. They are not used for assault to any significant degree as can be proven by FBI statistics that state an average of less than 300 murders per year involving a rifle. That is 300 out of a population of 325,000,000. That statistically approaches ZERO.

2018-08-23_8-15-05
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

Further, the AR-15 rifle is only a tiny subset of the “rifles” category as reported by the FBI. The FBI doesn’t even publish statistics specific to AR-15s because the number would be embarrassingly low for gun-grabbers. In effect, banning the AR-15 would be statistically a useless act with regards to murder.

If you are tempted to disregard this data and claim “well, if it only saves one life”, then you are ignoring the hundreds of examples of lives saved when the AR-15 is used as a defensive tool. Here are some examples:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/

The defensive utility and importance  of the AR-15 is profound. So, the question is really “why do you need a capable defensive rifle?” But let’s stick with a neutral version of the question for now, “why do you need an AR-15”?

So, “why do you need an AR-15?”

The needs satisfied by the AR-15s are broad and include defense, utility, marksmanship and fun. Here are a few points to consider:

  1. Nasty governments, throughout history, have abused and then murdered disarmed populations.
  2. Socialist governments become very nasty, throughout history, when they run out of other people’s money.
  3. Throughout history, socialist citizens do not respect property rights or individual freedom and thus encourage socialist governments to be nasty.
  4. Current lefties fit #3 and are demanding #2 more and more each month (and they haven’t even run out of other people’s money yet).
  5. It’s a great home and property defense rifle. https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.VehsdlcpJ
  6. Self defense is a natural right. As a free individual, I get to pick the weapon of choice for this, not you or your politician.
  7. It’s a great community defense rifle. You need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.  https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/hero-ends-church-shooting-texas/#axzz5P0NTWyo3
  8. The Constitution guarantees that the federal government “shall not infringe” on the right to guns. If you want to change this then you should seek a Constitutional amendment, not usurping legislation. Federal legislation cannot “infringe” in any way, per the Second Amendment.
  9. The AR-15 uses relatively inexpensive ammo making it a good training rifle.
  10. The AR-15 has limited recoil making it a good training rifle for all ages.
  11. The AR-15 uses standard components so it is versatile and easy to customize.
  12. It’s a great rifle for controlling pests like Coyotes and Hogs.
  13. It’s a fun rifle to shoot.
  14. I don’t have to “need” it, I might just want it and I am a free individual.

Finally, to those that would take individual rights away, “You may all go to hell”… this is a corollary because gun-grabbers will read this list and reply with “so what, we want the guns”. Well, that is a affront to individual rights and at that point they have taken on the role of the assaulter. Which brings me to the primary point.

A Planned Assault on Individual Property and Rights

The irony is that those that would ban guns they mislabel “assault rifles” are the ones “assaulting”. They intend to steal private property and natural rights from individuals.

In the context of the current socialist movement, their leaders know the following:

  • The socialist plan is based on other people’s money and property.
  • It’s implementation requires individuals to be denied absolute rights.
  • It plans to tread vigorously on individuals, their families, their livelihood, their happiness
  • Eventually they will run out of other people’s money.
  • Historically, if the population is suitable disarmed, government force is then used.

Some of those that support socialist leaders understand this and support it. Many, which history refers to as the “useless eaters” are enticed by charismatic leaders, “free” stuff, a warped sense of justice, or claims of rights that are not rights at all (i.e. rights do not require other people’s money or services).  Regardless, the socialist movement is a planned assault on individual property and rights.

So, the primary answer to “Why do you need an AR-15?” really boils down to defending the individual from the incoming collectivist march. Obviously, this is not a new battle in the context of history. Arguably, it is the battle in the context of history. And given history as a guide, it is easy to see that the AR-15, even just the prolific ownership of it, is an important deterrent against those that would steal property and rights from others.

“From my cold dead hands.” is wise advice.

10 Reasons to avoid The Leader in Me and the “7 Habits of Happy Kids”

10 Reasons to avoid The Leader in Me and the “7 Habits of Happy Kids”

Here are 10 reasons to avoid The Leader in Me program in your school. When a school adopts the program, it’s 7 habits are presented as absolutes and repeated endlessly. The habits are not universal truths.

 1. The habits are presented as absolutes.

The habits should not be treated as absolutes, yet they are. Each habit may have a time and a place as a guideline but they are not absolute wisdom. If fact, often they are exactly the wrong advice.

Be Proactive (Habit 1) can be sound advice when the student is taught to think for himself and act on his own without the need for assistance. However, as a habit and in the classroom, this message is generally communicated as “obey”. Of course, obeying rules is a good thing to maintain order in a classroom or at home. But it is not a life-lesson absolute and should not be presented as such. There are times in life to obey and times to disobey. As they proceed in life, it’s not healthy for kids to always feel that obeying is the best option or even the first option. Kids need to know when it is proper to obey, such as in a classroom setting, and when it is proper to stand up and say “no, I do not agree and will not do that”. Perhaps in this example it would be proper to discuss this as a class rule, but certainly not an attribute of a good leader or an absolute in life.

Together is better (Habit 6) is not an absolute. Often one dedicated person with a vision accomplishes more in less time. History is full of brilliant individuals that accomplished the unbelievable by themselves.

Thinking Win-Win (Habit 4) is not an absolute. Standing up for yourself when you are right and someone else is wrong is the right thing to do.  You don’t compromise with bullies or liars or thieves.

2. The habits are repeated, over, and over, and over.

The habits are everywhere at school, are pushed on parents  and are encouraged in life outside of school. You will not be able to avoid them and your kids will be exposed to them non-stop. At our school the habits are reiterated from dawn to dusk and beyond the classroom, every day, all day. They are found in and among: morning announcements, posters, emails from teachers and faculty, phone calls from teachers and faculty, automated phone calls, teacher podiums and classroom walls, the cover of the yearbook, in the lessons, themes for fairs and fundraisers, faculty presentations and opening statements, parent training events, parent-teacher conferences and even suggested as inspiration over holidays.

3. The habits overstep the role of the school. 

As a parent, I feel that values should be taught at home and any values taught at school should not depend on worldview. Values such as self-discipline, respect for others, hard work and integrity seem universal. And while the leader in me claims to promote such values the program also encourages peer dependence, group-think, emotion-based decisions and save-the-world goal setting. While some may find these latter values acceptable, many do not.

4. The habits are suitable for training workers, not entrepreneurs.

The habits do not promote innovation. They teach task execution. “Get it done”, “do it efficiently”, “meet the schedule”,  “don’t squabble”, etc are all good traits but they set the bar very low and hide important attributes that kids will need to position themselves for a greater impact in life. People need to know how to think, to solve problems and to arrive at solutions that might not be fit a specific process. In other words, they will have to lead and forge new paths to the solution. To do so they will have to remove themselves from the tiny “task-based” box that the Leader in Me traps them in.

To succeed at a higher level, they will have to improvise, to focus, to create, to have original ideas, to gain knowledge, to put in the hard time, to succeed, to fail, to learn from mistakes, to compete, to win, to lose, to solve problems on their own, to take risks, to seek individual rewards, to be a rugged individual, to work late into the night, to dedicate years to an endeavor, to stand by your argument, to know facts, to communicate as a person and many other values. Many of these values are counter to the habit’s absolute language.

5. Many real-world habits of true leaders are missing.  

The program is marketed as a “leadership” program, but it is not. Where in the habits do you see real-world leadership attributes like vision, or perseverance, or flexibility, or quick thinking, or rapid responses to changes, or creativity, or communication skills? They aren’t promoted with the habits and these are just a few examples of values that leaders need. Out-of-the-box thinking or critical thinking is not important to the program, instead they place all emphasis on compliance with rules, dependence on peers and adherence to a given process. That is not leadership at all. This sounds more like a follower to me. Remember, the program deals in absolutes and kids are taught that these habits define leadership.

6. The habits highlight the group over the individual. 

When the individual is discussed in the habits it is always in the context of serving the school, saving the world, serving the community, or simply obeying rules. This encourages responsibility, order and discipline but it is not about the person, or the individual at all. The individual is told that they are important in the context of how they sacrifice themselves to accomplish other people’s priorities or society’s noble cause-of-the-day. The habits do not encourage people to consider: who am i as a person, what do I want to achieve in life, what skills I possess that might be unique, what strengths do I have, what personal goals do I want to set for myself, what knowledge do I seek, what am I interested in, etc. The individual is discussed in terms of responsibility to others, not himself or herself.

7. The habits dehumanize communications.

The program encourages correspondence between students, teachers, administrators and even parents to be based on catch phrases like, “synergize”,  “sharpen the saw” and “everyone can win”. The program refers to this as a “common voice”. This limits the human element in communication and correspondence becomes robot-like as the buzzwords are integrated, often unnaturally into communications.

8. The program misdirects school emphasis.

Schools involved in leader in me promote the program over all else. Our school has replaced the honor roll with a “Go Getter” award based on a students ability to comply with and promote the 7 habits. Our school proudly points to wall art that states “Everyone can Win!” instead of “work hard” or “be your best”. The yearbook cover reminds the kids and parents that the habits are the most important part of education. The program encourages, and our school has adopted, subjective grading schemes (like Rubric’s) and group learning initiatives (like Engage! Learning Model). Fundraisers are executed to purchase more Leader in Me signs and posters to further force the kids attention on the habits. Compliance to the 7 habits is prioritized and awarded over academic excellence.

9. Your child may be used for marketing purposes.

Schools that adopt The Leader in Me may be required to provide video clips of children reciting the habits. The kids are coached to recite a habit and it’s influence on camera. If the child is not a fan of the habits, like mine, then words are provided for them. These video clips of your children are taken without your knowledge and can be used to promote the program without your explicit permission (you signed the release form for the yearbook, right?).

10. The habits will be used inappropriately and ineffectively for conflict resolution. 

The habits are so prevalent that wisdom is lost in how to deal with individual students that are not behaving properly. The school will seek to force-fit a habit as a means of conflict resolution. Unfortunately, the habits are focused on groups, so individuals that need guidance are not singled out. Instead a group is asked to come up with a “win-win” or “synergize” solution instead of directly dealing with the child causing the problem in the first place.

Bonus. The program is expensive.

Schools pay $50,000 or so annually for the program. This money could be better spent elsewhere or not collected in the first place.