Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Article V convention of the states

Dick Morris mentioned yesterday that there are now 29 states that have authorized the convention for the purpose of submitting an amendment to require that the Congress balance the budget.  The webpage for that is here.  I have looked at the page and have concluded that it is somewhat lacking in what I would think would be desirable in promoting its cause.

This leads me to a writing a post in which we can look at the article in detail, word-by-word if you will, and then war-game it to speculate what could happen in such an event should it occur.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[ emphasis added]

In order for a convention to take place, it must follow the Constitution itself.  It cannot deviate from it, or it can be declared illegal, and its delegates may be arrested and charged.  Certainly, an attempt to overthrow the Constitution cannot be entertained, unless that is the intent.  If such was the intent, why bother with legal technicalities?

Thus, two thirds of the states must apply to Congress for such a convention.  The Congress can choose the means of ratification.  Consequently, the Congress cannot initiate it, but can choose the means by which any changes can be ratified, amongst them being only two means from which to choose.

If there were a "runaway Convention", whatever they produce must be ratified by the means that Congress specified.  If a rogue Convention proposes any other means, this reverts back to sedition, and they could be arrested and charged for that.  Does anyone believe that the US Government is going to idly stand by and watch its authority being stripped away, and not offer any resistance to this whatever?  Any deviation would at least be stopped in the courts, and in short order.  I'd say that whatever comes out the convention will be challenged to the hilt, as any attempt to rein in the power of the current government is not likely to go unnoticed, and their attitude towards this is not likely to be indifferent.

Three fourths of the states must ratify.  No other way of ratification can be legal.  If there is any attempt to implement changes by any other means, it can be stopped, and most likely will be stopped.  It is highly unlikely that anything revolutionary is likely to come out of the process.

The states will have control over the selection of delegates.  Reliable people are likely to be chosen.  If they turn out not to be, then the results will not likely be accepted ( see above).

In my opinion,  a runaway convention is unlikely, and even if it did occur, it won't achieve much, if anything at all.

What if the worst occurs, and a runaway convention completely rewrites and changes the Constitution, and nobody did anything to stop it?  Then I would submit that this is already happening anyway.  The assumption is that we have something to lose.  Actually, we have nothing to lose, for if we do nothing, the Constitution will be usurped anyway.

Water calcs revisited

Eight square feet can produce one gallon of distilled water per day, says this dude in a video.

Let's see.  Assuming 100 watts strike the surface, then that would be 800 watts times the number of hours of effective sunshine.  Let's say six hours.  Then we obtain 4800 watt hours per day, or 4.8 kilowatt hours in order to produce 1 gallon.  That compares with six in my own water experiment.   Since I didn't bother to get an energy rating on the stove I used, then I can conclude that my numbers may have been off a bit.

It seems to me that you can use this dude's idea of a water distiller.  I can use a glass top on a table, and fill the lower side with dirty water and collect the water from the glass.  He says it needs to be airtight.  I can buy that ( with a dollar ).

Incidentally, I think the ideas I obtained before are better than this.  I probably won't try this one.


Maybe I might try this one.  He goes into detail into how to build it.

A Tale Of Two Candidacies

It was the best of campaigns and the worst of campaigns.

The best of Cruz is where he stands as a lone knight in the Senate who stopped amnesty.  He introduced a poison pill amendment that scuttled Rubio's Gang of Eight amnesty gambit.  If he would have continued in that vein, he might have done better as a candidate in the polls, but since he didn't, he really lost me with his off-the-rails campaign that it has become.

Here's Cruz going up against Fox, when Fox was in full Rubio mode.  She is trying to give aid and support to a failing Rubio candidacy.  Cruz did a lot to take out Rubio, and good riddance too.  Note, however, that blocking amnesty is no long term solution to the border issue.  Only a wall and a refusal to grant amnesty will do that.  Cruz only has a temporary solution.  Perhaps it is no solution at all, but a delaying tactic.  It will only delay the inevitable unless the tide is turned with this influx of immigrants.

Cruz is better than Rubio, but not by much.  I don't believe he will build that wall.

In this video, Cruz seems to be playing the race card.  He sound his just like a Democrat here.  It is Cruz at his worst.  Sure, he needs to find a way to beat Trump, but how does it go with the above video?

Will the real Ted Cruz please stand up?

The GOP asked for Trump, now that they've got him, he's a "problem"

First of all, how did the GOP ask for Trump?  It is because of open borders/ trade policies.  Of all the objections to Trump, this one is the most cogent.  It isn't because of what Cruz accuses Trump of being, a Democrat in disguise.  The GOP isn't challenging Obama's Big Government Agenda.  This isn't the reason at all.  Nor is it social policy.  They oppose Trump more than they opposed homosexual marriage.  It isn't Trump's tax proposals.  These are straight down the line GOP fare.  It isn't his alleged rudeness, his opponents are just as insulting.   No, it is open borders/ trade.  It cannot be anything else.

With open borders/ trade policies, you inevitably change the electorate.  One way or another, there is going to be a disruptive candidate.  Although Trump is accused of being liberal, he is actually a reactionary, if the current meme is correct- only downtrodden, former middle class whites support him.  ( Sanders is the disruptive candidate on the Democrat side.)

But it may be deeper than that.  As the formerly Christian nation, an Obama assertion, has risen up to challenge the globalist elite of both parties, it becomes a matter of justice.  Note how Trump continually talks about fairness in the process.  This is a reflection of the betrayal many Americans feel with respect to how their government operates.  The elite in both parties do not oppose the Muslim president nearly as much as the reactionary Trump.  They will do anything to stop Trump, including cheating.  Preventing him from speaking is another tactic.  Violence is not far from the possibilities if Trump's popularity continues and carries him too far. 

Whatever happened to the freedom that once was taken for granted?   The elite are indifferent to that, if anything, they are hostile to it.  Why wouldn't patriotic Americans rise up against an occupying army of politicians and bureaucrats who do not share their traditionalist views?  In all this, the GOP has done little, and as Trump arrives on the scene, they resist.  What's going on here?  As the GOP has claimed the mantle of defending traditional America, why would they resist the very man who says he will do it?  The GOP's passivity in this regard invites a man like Trump to make them put up or shut up.  It looks like they do not want to claim that mantle any more.  Otherwise, they would embrace Trump.  If anything, they would really like it if Trump would shut up.

The GOP has asked for Trump because they have pretended to be the bulwark of the nation, and have not delivered on that promise.  Now that Trump promises to deliver, he's a "problem".

Monday, May 2, 2016

I see the light!!!

Trump is gonna win!   Bwah, hah, hah!

Bill Gates wants to raise capital gains taxes

Free Republic


Not very popular amongst the Freepers.   I say tax the crap out of corporations, and go easy on the individual.  Nothing leftist about that.  Why?  Corporations overwhelm the individual.  It used to be the case that the government could be run on taxation on imports.  The idea of taxing entities, such as importers from foreign countries, is not much different from taxing corporations.

Freepers don't have their thinking caps on.

Why do these so-called conservatives, who plan on helping Hillary, get a pass?

They want to be considered pro-capitalism, pro-freedom; but if you are that, then why be against Trump?

Do they really expect anyone to believe them why they say that they will vote for Hillary over Trump?

Why do you find so-called conservatives like George Will, who want to pull out all the stops in order to dump Trump even if it means electing Hillary ; and then not find them when it was time to deep-six Obama?

Who are they trying to kid?

Obligatory, 5.2.16; On the themes of the blog

This is a type of post that once again states my original purpose here: to figure out what the heck has gone wrong with this country.  But now, more than this: as it appears to me to be a case of what's gone wrong throughout Western Civilization in general.

A continual theme here as well is the saying that "the truth is a slippery thing".  This is particularly important to note when the subject matter is of such vast scope.  It is beyond the capacities of just one individual to understand what has gone wrong in all of civilization.  But it may not be too ambitious to say that finding the truth should be the beginning point.  However, there aren't many of these out there that I can tell.  Most people will say they are for the truth, but does that make it so?

The blog initially explored topics in which I had already made a determination.  Yet hasty conclusions do not a truth make.  It is almost as if I have to back up and start all over from the beginning.  It wasn't political, nor material, but a spiritual problem I found.  At least, that's where I think I am at this time.

Certain things didn't play out.  Cold fusion was explored, but that seems to have hit a dead end again.  Rossi's device didn't seem to work out.  He gets accused of fraud, but what if he's innocent?  I decided long ago to stop following that, and followed Kirk Sorensen's work instead.  There are other things in the works that I follow as well, but as of now, nothing besides fracking seems to be working and producing at this time.  Not saying that it couldn't, though.

Who I conceived of being the bad guys seem to be winning a lot of the battles.  How do you know who the bad guy is?  Some of the guys who seemed like good guys are now looking like bad guys.  That theme about truth being slippery strikes again.  If you don't know who to trust, then what?  Where do you go for the truth?  Can you depend upon anyone, even your own self?

Troubling questions, these are.  Answered, they must be.

I do not trust the left wingers.  They lie.  But they are not alone.   I think a number of others who I believed to be good guys seem to have a credibility problem.

I've gotten on Limbaugh's case because I think he loves money a bit too much.  That seems to be another theme.  A foundational type of theme.  Money is a corrupting influence.  If you can get free from the dollar sign, the credibility factor goes up a notch.  Liberals love their money, perhaps even more than the conservatives, because the liberals are primarily materialistic.  But that doesn't free conservatives from that influence.  Conservatives give lip service to the spiritual, but how sincere is it?

Those who are willing to die ( or suffer )  for what they believe have more credibility than those who must be paid for their support.  Yet this is not a determinant of what is truth.  Only the truth of what someone believes and to what degree.  If money is required, then the sincerity of those who required it can be questioned.  If blood is shed and the faith kept, then the sincerity of that sacrifice is not likely to be questioned.

History matters too, but there is hazard in that.  The victors write the history books.  Little remains of defeated and lost causes.  The victors will try to erase any memory of what those defeated were like, and if they were persuasive in any way. 

An example in the field of energy was with the molten-salt reactor.  Once that was defeated politically, it was nearly forgotten.  It is now being remembered, but that remembrance has not brought triumph.  The same could be said of cold fusion.  Can the defeated remain defeated?  One must take care not to be defeated then. 

This reminds me of another theme.  Being right isn't enough.  In Aesop's Fable, the lamb always loses the argument with the wolf.  In this world, force has the better of any argument. There can be no force greater than God, but if you don't believe that, then what?  We are all merely wolves and lambs.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Drilling holes in steel

In order to use a steel container for distillation, will need to drill some holes for the steam to escape.  Here's how to do this.

For liberals, two plus two equals five

Liberalism is all about arguing against reality.  Take something which should have no controversy in it at all, and liberals will find a controversy.

For example, men can be women, and women can be men.  However, such a thought cannot be, unless those who utter it have lost their minds.  But that's liberalism for you.  If Bruce Jenner wants to be a girl, and a daddy too, why, what's wrong with that????

Another example is this notion of equality.  The  main problem with liberals, though, is that they think you and I are equal; they themselves on the other hand, are special snowflakes.  As everyone knows, the snowflakes are not to be offended.  The snowflakes cannot be challenged.  The snowflakes cannot be contradicted.  If you commit such an offense, be aware that hell hath no fury like an offended snowflake.

Bill Whittle once wrote an essay called Tribes, in which he described two different Tribes in our culture today.  One tribe, known as the Grays, are the ones in which two plus two equals four, and that's it.  The other tribe, known as the Pinks, can have two plus two equaling any doggone thing they want.  If they cannot get it, then they will raise hell until they do get it.  After 9.1.1.  Whittle said, the nation went Gray.  Since then, we have gone Pink.  We have gotten so pink, that Lenin may be blushing out there in the afterlife.

We're the country that landed men on the moon, but we can't get a man into orbit these days.  In engineering and science, two plus two always equals four.  It is a Gray thing, not a Pink thing.

Once upon a time, we believed in progress.  We still do, only thing is that the kind of progress today isn't progress, unless it is the progress of a fatal disease.  We're going backward, and calling the backwardness "progress".  Going to the moon, therefore, was progress.  Failing to  graduate engineers and scientists, on the other hand, gives you only the kind of progress that can declare AGW as a science to be taken seriously, whilst at the same time forbidding any kind of activity, such as implementing the molten-salt reactor technology that could actually solve that problem, if that problem indeed existed.

To get molten-salt reactors and space travel, you need two plus two to equal four.  When it is otherwise, you get liberalism.  When you get liberalism, you lose it all.  It is just a matter of time.