Of Tyrants, Lies and Decrees

Of Tyrants, Lies and Decrees


“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.



“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!


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.


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”.


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?


“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. 


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


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


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



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










The “President Makes Laws” according to Scholastic Teaching Resources

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


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.


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.


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:


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.


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.”


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.


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.


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:


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.

Modern Education = Confusion

Today’s educational system creates more questions than answers. You may wonder, what happeded to textbooks? Or, why group learning is so prevalent? Or,  what is this crazy new scoring system?

The answer to these questions becomes apparent when you understand that the materials have changed and the goals of the education system are not as they once were.

Let’s start with the overall idea of education. In any educational system we must consider what materials, methods, results and validation components are implemented.

  • What is taught? (Materials)
  • How is it taught? (Methods)
  • Who is taught and what is retained? (Results)
  • How is success evaluated? (Validation)

Classic System

In the classic model of education, it is easy to see how facts are taught and individuals acquire knowledge. Grades are earned and help students and parents adjust.


In the classic system, confusion is removed. This leads to a clean transfer of knowledge to the student. We end up with prepared students with realistic goals! They are independent and ready for the real world.

Independent students are ready for a competitve market. Armed with facts, they are confident in their ideas, even when others may choose popular myths over unpopular truths.

Modern “Confusion” System

In the modern education system, facts are muddied with causes, focused lessons are replaced with multi-topic/multi-approach discussions,  groups are targeted over individuals and scores are arbitrary.


In the modern system, confusion hinders knowledge transfer. This results in unprepared students with unrealistic goals. The are trained to be dependent on one another.

Dependent students are not prepared to compete in the arena of ideas.  Instead, they seek approval of peers and authorities. They are confused by their lack of knowledge and utopian goals.

Confusion is Rampant

Unfortunately, confusion is everywhere.  Modern education is clearly dedicated to creating confusion. Common core and state alternatives set the stage for educational confusion while “whole school transformation” programs like The Leader in Me facilitate values confusion.