Archive for the ‘Humanity’ Category
Are Electric Cars Really Green?
NOTE: I didn’t write this excellent breakdown and analysis of electric vehicles and “green energy” or whether they are truly “green” and therefore less damaging to the environment than fossil fuel vehicles. If I can find the name of the original author I will gladly provide attribution.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EV’s on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”
Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging.
That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly. But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”
Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. These mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. There have been many articles written about this tragedy in periodicals that you have probably never seen nor heard of and your local and national news sources don’t cover stories like this. Regardless whether you are aware of such atrocities, should we factor in the stories of these children as part of the cost of driving an electric car?” Yes, I think we must.
I’ll end this note with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
“Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically, with an open mind, you can see that “Going Green” is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye or ear depending on your sources for information.
Pfizer Creates New Version of Ivermectin to Save the World
The “I” word. That word that makes Fauci, Democrats, and pharmaceutical executives fume and raise their fists in defiant opposition. It made them so angry they created a campaign to discredit it and ban it. It made them so mad they asked their pals in the legacy media to call it horse and cow dewormer and mock anyone who said it should be considered as an effective early treatment for Covid-19.
Ivermectin. A medication used to treat parasite infestations. In humans, these include head lice, scabies, river blindness, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. In veterinary medicine, the medication is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.
Yet thousands of physicians, nurses, medical researchers, and other health care professionals discovered it provided amazing benefits to covid patients at all stage of the illness. These people were quickly shut down, threatened, mocked, and attacked by the legacy news media and the trolls of social media.
Dr. John Campbell PhD, trains nurses and develops open learning resources for nurses and health care professionals. He broke down the hard core science behind the Pfizer pill and Ivermectin and provided a clear and easy to understand comparison which shows Ivermectin to be KING and the new Pfizer pill to be a functional copy of Ivermectin. In other words the two “act” and work in the body in the same way. Ivermectin just does a better job of it.
That won’t stop Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci and the CDC and their water boys at the legacy media from continuing to carry their disinformation and misinformation about Ivermectin to the eyes and ears of the public so they can convince them their NEW PILL is the answer to the pandemic. Of course their new pill will cost 10 times or more what Ivermectin does.
Here’s the goods:
New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysis by Dr. John Campbell.
New Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃H₃₂F₃N₅O₄ PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
So, what is a protease? So what is a protease inhibitor? And, what is 3CL? Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL main protease, or 3CL Mpro)
Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (3rd September 2020)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00108#
The activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral infection was confirmed in 7 of 23 compounds. Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
The strength and persistency of the interaction between IVE and the binding site of 3CLpro indicate that a partial inhibition of the catalytic activity could have place as the drug interacts with the main subdomains that define the enzyme binding pocket: Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x
As shown in Fig. 4, out of 13 OTDs only ivermectin completely blocked ( more than 80%) the 3CLpro activity at 50 µM concentration.
Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.
Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra06379g
From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1
Ivermectin, C48H74O14 – Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
We have documented an intense binding of both ivermectin B1a and B1b isomer to the main protease with subsequent energy (ETot-) values of -384.56 and -408.6.
PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease.
Risk of virus developing resistance to PF-07321332
Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full
With SARS-CoV-2 S Spike protein Ivermectin showed high binding affinity to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.
In agreement to our findings, ivermectin was found to be docked between the viral spike and the ACE2 receptor. Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human TMPRSS2 Protein (ACE2 protein). The docking results revealed that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −174.971) and protein–ligand interactions.
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human ACE-2 Protein, ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −159.754) and protein–ligand interactions.
With SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein.
With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions.
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 PLpro Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein (MolDock score −180.765) and protein–ligand interactions. – END
Bottom line: Ivermectin WORKS. Pfizer knows it. Moderna knows it. Merc knows it. Joe Biden, Tony Fauci, and the Democrats know it. They’ve known it since the beginning. They intentionally lied about it and spread disinformation using their pets in the legacy media. They pilloried anyone who tried to tell the truth. They got the top dogs at the AMA and all the medical societies to go along and put the hammer down on any physicians, nurses, or other medical professionals who even questioned their mandates.
It boggles the mind how effective the propaganda and coercion has been and how many Americans STILL believe the fools running the show.
India’s Ivermectin Blackout
Part I of a series on the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in India
Authored by Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.
News of India’s defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one’s face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.
Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvermectin
One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the “talk” pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the “senior” editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.
The easy way to read the “talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left “talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.
There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”
Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports.
Perhaps NPR is trying so hard because NPR is essentially a government mouthpiece. The US government is “all-in” with vaccines with the enthusiasm of a 17th century Catholic Church “all-in” with a Geocentric Model of the Universe disputing Galileo. Claiming that India’s numbers are inaccurate might distract from the overwhelming success of Ivermectin.
But in the end, the truth matters. It mattered in 1616, and it matters in 2021.
The graphs and data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE database do not lie. On the contrary, they provide a compelling trail of truth that no one can dispute, not even the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.
Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.
In 1616, you could not make up the telescopic images of Jupiter and its orbiting moons, nor could you falsify the crescent-shaped images of Venus and Mercury. These proved that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe – a truth the Catholic Church could not allow.
Likewise, the massive drop in cases and deaths in India to almost nothing after the addition of Ivermectin proved the drug’s effectiveness. This is a truth that the NIH, CDC, and FDA cannot allow because it would endanger the vaccine policy.
Never mind that Ivermectin would save more lives with much less risk, much less cost, and it would end the pandemic quickly.
Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.
This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths – which we know were Delta Variant – down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.
By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths.
Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.
It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.
Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 26
COVID Daily Deaths: 3
The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 127,108
COVID Daily Deaths: 574
Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:
Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 61
COVID Daily Deaths: 2
Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 24
COVID Daily Deaths: 0
Now let us look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin.
Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases.
Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html
Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]
COVID Daily Cases: 1,997
COVID Daily Deaths: 33
Like the JHU CSSE data, Galileo’s telescope did not lie either, and the truth can usually be found in plain sight. Ivermectin works, and it works exceedingly well. Harvard-trained virologist Dr. George Fareed and his associate, Dr. Brian Tyson of California’s Imperial Valley, have saved 99.9% of their patients with a COVID Cocktail that includes Ivermectin. They have released versions of their new book published in the Desert Review that everyone should read.
I could talk about how every one of my patients who used Ivermectin recovered rapidly, about my most recent case who felt 90% better within 48 hours of adding the drug, but I won’t. I could write about how Wikipedia censors more than Pravda, about how you should always read the “talk” section of EVERY Wikipedia article to go behind the scenes and understand what the editors DO NOT want you to read, but I will refrain.
I could write about VAERS and how it is so much easier to navigate by following Open VAERS or how Wikipedia has unfairly portrayed Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world’s sharpest and most credible doctors. But I will hold back.
I could also discuss our current cancer treatment system’s dangers and how chemotherapy and radiation stimulate cancer stem cells and cancer recurrence. About how this information has been suppressed and how the addition of repurposed drug cocktails can help prevent this, but I digress.
https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp/0998055425
I could recite the history of early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, with all the specifics, and EXACTLY WHY this lifesaving information has been censored, but instead, I will leave researching these topics to each of you readers as individuals.
https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Justus-R-Hope/dp/1737415909
Because you already know what will happen if you simply sit back and swallow what the media are feeding you. You MUST question what the government tells you, and always DO YOUR OWN research.
Following the 1616 Inquisition of Galileo, the Pope banned all books and letters that argued the sun was the center of the Universe instead of the Earth. Similarly, today, the FDA and WHO have banned any use of Ivermectin for COVID outside of a clinical trial.
YouTube and Wikipedia both consider Ivermectin for COVID as heresy.
“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19… Treatment misinformation: claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.”
Wikipedia defines heresy as: “any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy.”
Heresy is disagreeing with the government, or their health authority, even if they are all wrong and even if their policies harm people. Today we no longer call it heresy; it is labeled as misinformation.
Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced on June 22, 1633, to formal imprisonment, although this was commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.
On August 7, 2021 Medpage Today published a new quiz, “Can COVID Misinformation Cost You Your Medical License?”
That Time I Quit Meth and Found My Savior, Jesus Christ
Guest Blog by J. A. Ebberts – @JAEbberts on Twitter
Editors Note: This was taken from a thread in J. A. Ebbert’s’ Twitter feed by permission.
So there I was, minding my own business on day 3 or 4 of a meth induced “walking coma”, checking from behind the mini-blinds at every car that passed by my house to make sure it wasn’t the “Po-lice” or some sort of body snatching skin-walker…
Paranoia had riddled my mind. I lay in bed and could feel my body shutting down from exhaustion, but my mind refused to shut up long enough for me to get some sleep.
Every shadow in my room concealed some terrible entity bent on my destruction. I was tired, I was sick and I was rapidly losing my mind.
A few weeks earlier I had met some dudes in Dallas heavily involved in the trafficking of a certain party drug, and has some friends who were moving down there to set up a “business.” I was invited to participate with them and was seriously considering the offer. All of my friends had moved down there and the parties were a non-stop love fest of good vibes and PLUR nonsense, but in an inexplicable moment of clarity, like a focused beam of sunlight piercing a storm cloud, I had the awareness to ask myself “is it worth it?”
Was the paranoia, the physical emotional and mental toll on my body, the self-inflicted annihilation worth it?
after finally finding maybe an hour or two of sleep, I decided that I needed to know, once and for all, what this life was all about.
For about 6 months prior to this moment, I had a nagging feeling like there was something “more” I needed to be doing. I was agnostic. I didn’t care to really know if God was real, because if he was, and he was who they say he was, then he totally understood why I did what I did and wouldn’t judge me harshly for it. “He gets it”, I reasoned. And that worked for me.
But still, there was something more to be had and I somehow knew it. I felt like there were good and malevolent forces around me all the time. I remember a girlfriend kind of making fun of me for saying so, but still I felt it, even without context.
I’ll spare you the details of a very specific mescaline trip that in retrospect served as a tipping point for the lifestyle I had been leading (maybe a story for another time?), but here I now found myself on the brink of making a decision.
A decision that could very realistically land me in prison, land me dead, or who knows what.
While mulling it over, I remembered something my dad had said to me a year or two prior to this moment. In his efforts to get me to consider a larger spiritual existence (and clean up my act) he approached me one day and said “Adam, you’re a logical guy. Why don’t you apply the scientific method to this question?” He said “These are the things that we are told to do, if we want to receive an answer to whether or not God exists. This is the experiment and these are the conditions for replication. Why don’t you try it and see?”
At the time, I didn’t really give it another thought, but in this moment, that idea became very attractive to me. Why couldn’t I find out, once and for all, what was real and what was not? Replicate the experiment and see what happens. So, as I sat in my room contemplating my future, I decided to first find out if God was real or not. Once and for all. If nothing happens, then I have nothing to lose and can move to Dallas with my club-kid friends and move massive quantities of MDMA. But if he was real… if he did show up for me… then suddenly I have another option. Maybe even more than one option. Maybe an entire universe of possibilities opens up to me. All it takes to find out for sure is a little commitment to find out and some honesty with myself.
So, taking my cues from what I had heard and read about how to conduct this experiment, I decided to fast with the purpose of having God reveal himself to me.
I began my fast with a prayer, probably the first real prayer I have ever offered in my life. I told him that I wasn’t sure if he was there, but was going to fast anyway and if he was there to show me in a way unmistakable to me and that I would accept whatever that answer ended up being. I would ACT on whatever response I got. If I got nothing, then call me Dopey McSlangsalot and I’ll see ya in Dallas.
But if I got something, I was willing in that moment to do whatever that something required with no preconditions. No bargains. If God was real, then I was willing to accept that and let it transform my life. It’s not like I was doing anything productive with it at that point anyway.
So, I prayed, and I fasted. I went without food and water and had determined to do so for the next 24 hours at least, while I sought to overcome the self-imposed damages to my mind and body, and “recenter” myself.
It wasn’t long before I started to notice some things. Thoughts came to my mind, sometimes faster than I could grab them and really understand them. I started having some sensations in my body that I had no words for. At one point I thought I was having an acid flashback or something, as everything became quite vivid and clear. An overwhelming feeling of purpose and importance filled me.
I want to be careful here about what I share, because some of this experience I consider sacred and not for general consumption. I was told, in my mind in a voice not my own, in no uncertain terms, that I was receiving my answer. That what was taking place in and around me was the beginning of what would last for the next several hours as I sit alone in my room, upstairs in my parents’ house.
Not only was God real, but I was given some understanding about man’s complete insignificance in the universe. That at any moment the four walls that I thought protected me could explode in infinite directions, leaving me alone in space. I was powerless to stop it from happening and imagined myself left to ruin in the vacuum and the void and then almost simultaneously I was given the understanding of the complete care and love and intentional nature of this entire existence. That all of this was held together and in place for ME. For MY benefit and progression.
It immediately challenged everything I thought I had believed about so many things at that point that I don’t have time to list them. But I knew God was there, I knew he had real, tangible power and I knew, for the first time, that he answered sincere prayers.
I also knew that yes, there was something else for me to be doing. There was a better use of my time and talents than selling ecstasy to frat boys and that the time had come for me to be about whatever that was.
In an instant, I was transformed. The knowledge I had gained that night changed EVERYTHING about who I was. It changed every appetite that I had, and it took every paranoid thought and craving I had been wrestling with.
Through Christ, through the grace of God, I found real healing in the moment I had been willing to do, without precondition, whatever God wanted me to do, if he would reveal himself to me. I quit smoking, I quit meth and acid and X all immediately. That very night. Threw it all away and never had another craving or desire to ever touch the stuff again.
When we say “born again”, I was truly, born again. I was a new man much to the displeasure of many of my friends I may add. The very next day my best friend at the time came over with about 40 X-tabs and “a hot tub full of girls waiting for us.” I immediately recognized it for the temptation it was and turned him down. Not only did I turn him down, I started to tell him about what had happened to me the night before! He was confused and then angry and then maybe a little sad as he left.
It went that way with nearly all of my friends. None of them stuck around. None of them could abide me and my newly found Christianity, though many of them acknowledged that they could see the difference in my face and in my eyes.
The next 9 months of this story contain a lot of ups and downs. A lot of spiritual lessons and incredible truths and experiences prepared me to eventually serve a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Perhaps I’ll share some of those stories with you sometime. Stories about all of this and to those who consistently claim that I am not a Christian because of my Church membership.
There is absolutely NOTHING but the REAL Christ who could have saved me at that time and in that way.
Nothing but the REAL Christ would have had the power to transform a 130 pound drug addled punk rocker into what I am today and into what I am yet to become.
No other power exists in this universe to transform men in this way.
None.
There is no argument anyone can make about history, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or God himself that will have enough power to take this from me.
Talent On Loan From God
I first heard Rush Limbaugh in 1988 on KFI AM radio as I drove through SoCal traffic from Moreno Valley to Anaheim and back every week, Monday through Friday. Those of you who’ve lived in Southern California know how that commute along the 91 freeway provides plenty of slowdown time where there isn’t much else to do but listen to the radio.
I was 28 years-old, married with two little boys and a little girl on the way and just living life day to day, working to provide for my small but growing family. I had no real political identity at the time other than I voted for Ronald Reagan twice.
To be honest I can’t remember how I discovered Limbaugh. Whether someone recommended tuning in or if I just stumbled onto him one day, but I remember how his words resonated with the principles and values I had always held and believed in and I was hooked. It was his understanding of the founding principles of our nation, the founders themselves through their writings, and the documents they crafted to create the greatest and freest nation on earth, that ultimately won my admiration. Not all of his opinions aligned perfectly with mine. Sometimes we even disagreed, though usually such disagreements were on his chosen delivery or the stinging way in which he sometimes made his point. I understand why he delivered his daily monologue and opinions the way he did and it could come across as rude, belittling, or sarcastic, (for those listening in Loma Linda) but it got your attention and if you could get past the showmanship and not be offended, you’d learn something.
It was Rush Limbaugh who helped me solidify my identity as a political conservative.
I know his sarcasm and criticism coupled with his staunch unrelenting conservative positions rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. His detractors and haters are many, but what human being throughout recorded history who wasn’t afraid to stand on their convictions, on principle, and what he or she believed was right and true to their last dying breath, didn’t have haters? I’ve always maintained the real haters, those who sickeningly and despicably celebrated today, never listened to his shows. Never listened long enough to understand the context in his opinions or the depth of his analysis, which always circled back (Jen are you listening?) to the profound conservative principles he so thoroughly understood and taught. I’m confident they only listened to the carefully chosen sound bites fed to them by their chosen like-minded media and the pundits who interpreted Limbaugh’s words for them.
Their loss.
Needless to say he was a lightening rod.
The announcement of his passing today by his wife Kathryn, who took the microphone in his place was, sadly, not unexpected. It was just too soon. He hadn’t been on-air for several weeks and then, during what would be his final on-air appearance, the weakness from the illness that was slowly eating away at his lungs could be heard in his voice. He apologized to his audience for his periodic coughs or need to clear his throat, but he pushed through and gave his fans 3 solid hours of pure Rush.
Back in December Rush said this to his listeners, “The day’s gonna come folks when I’m not gonna be able to do this. I don’t know when that is. I want to be able to do it for as long as I want to do it and I want you to understand that, even when that day comes, I’d like to be here. ‘Cause I have this sense of needing to constantly show my appreciation for all that you have done and meant to me.” Rush genuinely loved his audience.
Rush Limbaugh single handedly changed radio. He created and grew a medium while providing the personality, charisma, and style necessary to catapult conservatism into the mainstream and help millions come to know and understand those principles in their purest unapologetic form. He is solely responsible for bringing millions of Americans into the conservative movement and for schooling millions of Liberals on who and what we really are.
I am proud to be counted in his audience and among his fans. He was not a perfect man. He admitted and reflected on his flaws but he never dwelt on them and he never let them define him. He was unabashedly optimistic and confident. He fought through his trials and came away better for them and he encouraged his listeners to do the same in our own lives.
Today God decided it was time to take the talent back, but He couldn’t do it without taking the man.
Heaven is better for it.
Thank you Mr. Limbaugh. God rest your soul.
Same Destination, Multiple Paths?
A blog post by John Pavlovitz titled “I’m Not the Radical Left, I’m the Humane Middle” popped up in my social media. The headline grabbed my attention so I clicked.
It’s a nice, flowery, feel good post. It says the kind of things that make our brains produce a good dose of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. The neurochemicals that make us happy and feel good.
So what’s wrong with that you ask?
Nothing, unless the flowers are covering the weeds. I’m not saying the article is an overt attempt to mislead or misinform. I’m sure the author earnestly believes in everything he wrote and how and why he came to his positions and opinions. But I don’t think he truly resides in the “Humane Middle” as he calls it. I don’t think he owns that real estate. I think he sits in the section of the bell curve the majority of us populate, if not more toward one side than the middle.
I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is an ideological leftist. I believe he is doing what ideological leftists do. He’s making a case to convince us and probably more importantly, those who share his worldview, their position IS the middle, the perfect balance, the ultimate destination, and if you aren’t just like them you’re simply “indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice.” Those are his words.
I don’t have a problem with people whose ideology is on the left side of the spectrum. If I was to pass one on the street I’d consider them with kindness and respect just like any other person walking that street. When I see people out and about I don’t see them as ideologues or members of a political party.
They’re just people. Like me.
I was taught to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I try to live that way. What I find problematic with folks of a leftist ideological persuasion is they don’t seem to be satisfied just having their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs and simply expressing them. In my experience, those on the left, and more so the activist left, aren’t happy until you accept and adopt their ideas, opinions, and beliefs as your own and they won’t hesitate to apply social pressure, even force, to get you there. Because, from my experience and interaction with political liberals, they’re right and you need to come to grips with that and change. PERIOD.
They are so convinced they know better than you how to live your life, they are going to do everything they can to live it for you and it’s all wrapped in the name of compassion, love, and humanity. They’re kind and tolerant until you refute their doctrine. Do that and you’ll see another side and it won’t be smiling.
Mr. Pavlovitz took an inventory of his positions. It’s a nice list that resembles what one might think Utopia is made of. He believes his list is “the list” everyone should have because, again, he’s in the middle. If your list isn’t like his, you’re the problem. You’re the extreme.
So, I decided to go ahead and do the same inventory to see how extreme I am, but I’m going to also explain the what and why of each point, how I got there and what makes me believe the way I do. That’s something Mr. Pavlovitz doesn’t do and I wish he did. But I believe if he got into the nuts and bolts of each item on his list he’d soon find himself well beyond the middle and it would ruin the entire thesis. How do I come to this conclusion? Read his other writings…
So let’s compare Mr. Pavlovitz’ “extremism screening list” with mine.
John: I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
Me: I believe in basic human rights. I don’t subscribe to the idea that different groups of people have different rights or more rights or less rights than any other. I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty (freedom to choose their life path), and the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.John: I believe we should protect the planet.
Me: I believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and all it provides. I’m certain we have very different ideas about what that means and how that can and should be achieved. We probably agree that people have and do exploit this planet’s resources and far too much is wasted and misused.John: I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
Me: I believe everyone should have access to healthcare. I do not subscribe to government run healthcare. There are better and far more efficient alternatives and they must be made available in the marketplace preferably at the community level. Health-share programs are providing a glimpse into how that might work. A public safety net for those who are truly unable to afford or provide for their own healthcare is a must but not how we currently fund and operate it. For any system like this to work it requires a high level of integrity and honesty amongst the populace. That’s just one reason our current system is broken.John: I believe all religions are equally valid.
Me: Valid is an interesting term to use here. Validity doesn’t necessarily equate goodness for humanity. I believe any religion that teaches love and respect for all people, service to others, self-restraint, self-reliance, chastity, temperance, charity, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, et al, brings good to all humanity and has value. Religions that violate free agency and seek to control adherents have no value in my opinion.John: I believe the world is bigger than America.
Me: Yep, the world is big. But at this point in our development as human beings, national borders are still a reality and necessity. Until we stop dividing ourselves into tribes with hard ideological segments that’s not going to change. The wide spectrum of cultural and ideological differences in this big world require them. I am an American. I love my country. I will protect and defend my country from any who would harm it or the way of life we enjoy. I do not have ill will toward any other nation or people. I will make my country the best I can within my sphere of influence. I believe our constitution is an inspired document containing principles that, when followed, lead to greater happiness and prosperity for all people. We, as a nation and a people, aren’t doing that right now which has lead to the place where John is feeling squeezed.John: I believe “pro-life” means to treasure all of it.
Me: I believe in the sanctity of human life at any and all stages of development. While I believe life is sacred, I believe the choices of those who willingly and knowingly take a life should have grave consequences up to and including paying for their crime with their own in certain cases and in accordance with our laws. I believe life begins in the womb. Once that life is created I believe we have a moral obligation to assure that human being has all the rights available to any of us and should be protected. I believe there are exceptions with regard to when an abortion is the right decision, which John appears to be couching, but those circumstances should be rare and few.John: I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not a baseline of humanity.
Me: This one tells me how far to one end of the spectrum John really is. I don’t know ANYONE, nor can I say I have ever met ANYONE who believes “whiteness” is superior. Do those people exist? Yes, we know they do because they’ve told us so. However, those who share John’s views would have you believe white supremacy is a massive problem by scale. It’s not. But they have convinced themselves that the election of Donald Trump is proof that half the people in this nation are white supremacists. Hence the need to make that statement in his list. NO SKIN COLOR is supreme. Such a radical view is a tiny minority in this country. See point one.John: I believe we are all one interdependent community.
Me: Ideally yes, but language barriers, cultural differences, religious beliefs, and our propensity to judge each other makes harmony on a large scale sometimes difficult, but not impossible.John: I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
Me: I believe if we lived by the golden rule, it wouldn’t matter what mix of ethnicity, culture, ideology, lifestyle, et al existed in our communities, places of employment, cities, states, or countries. We can and should be able to get along and work for the common good of everyone. Live and let live. However, diversity for diversity’s sake is a mistake and is counter productive. It creates an environment of preferential treatment which goes against human nature and the concept of fairness. This conclusion comes from people with much higher credentials, more academic placards, and greater influence than I.John: I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
Me: No one should be forced to believe or live any religious tenet. I don’t believe anyone is. I believe this is an extreme Left view and is patently false. Just because religion and religious belief is around you and you are exposed to it doesn’t mean you are being forced to abide by it. In fact, we are seeing converse examples of this extreme view as the Left attempts to force people of faith to abandon or hide their religious beliefs so as not to “impose” upon those who don’t share them. They tend to twist the concept of separation of church and state into something none of the framers of our constitution ever said or imagined. Numerous court cases in recent memory validate this trend by secularists in society.John: I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
Me: I absolutely agree. Until they come to America, break our laws, and/or threaten American lives in any way. Then they, by choice, devalue themselves and we must uphold and sustain our laws to protect our rights as citizens and the privileges citizenship has in our country. Others are welcome to come and enjoy the fruits of this nation. All I ask is that they do it legally, contribute while here, and be inclusive and welcoming to those unfamiliar with their unique cultures and ways and vice versa. I’ve lived in another country for an extended period of time. The non-Americans seem to understand this better than most Americans and expect the same behavior from us while living as guests in their countries.John: I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
Me: All true. Now how do we get large scale adoption and practice of these important traits?John: I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care – if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.
Me: I believe there is too. I see this every day. I see people helping people, sharing their abundance, teaching principles of self-reliance which creates a “can do” attitude and magnifies self-confidence, but that’s not what gets the headlines. The headlines scream the opposite incessantly which leads many people to think that’s the norm. It’s not. But that’s how people tend to see it and for Liberals it seems to really spike the emotions. They seem to see the world only as reported on TV or in their Twitter feed. With emotions revved to maximum capacity the finger pointing begins and since they see themselves as “knowing better than you” they blame you, the ones who see the world differently and believe differently (more diversely), than they do. That almost seems contradictory to what they publicly say though doesn’t it? We agree on this point, but he seems to not see the forest for the trees.
Bottom line: Anyone can create a list of platitudes without explanation or detail to provide context or reveal intent and make it sound amazing, wonderful, and woke. But doing so doesn’t place you in a position of neutrality to say “see, I’m the middle. I’m in the place where everyone should strive to go.” I’m sorry but you don’t get to determine where the center is. Neither do I. That, in and of itself, is a journey of discovery and I believe always becomes self-evident at some point.
Frankly I’ve always seen those in the middle, the centrists, the moderates, to be little more than fence sitters. People with their finger in the air waiting for the popular winds of change push them toward a decision, or to take a position, or make a stand. If that is where you plant your flag, I’m sorry, but to me that’s just wishy washy and indecisive. Besides, walking or sitting in the middle of the road tends to get one run over.
When we dig down to find that bottom line, I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is trying to get to a place we all want to exist. One that is full of kindness, love, abundance, and void of envy, hatred, and poverty. The perceived difference for me and conservatives like me, is Mr. Pavlovitz and liberals like him think their way of getting there is the only way and if you’re not doing it their way, well, you’re just not educated enough or have the intellect to see how life really works. In fact, you may be relegated to something white and undesirable, measured only by how you vote or don’t…
Mr. Pavlovitz appears sanctimonious to some extent. But to him and those who share his views, I’m certain I’m the sanctimonious one.
Or maybe I’m just a “bitter, ignorant cretin, Trump-asslicking loser” as articulated by singer/songwriter Richard Marx on Twitter when I disagreed with one of his angry hostile profanity laced political tweets about the president. In fairness I started the feud. I’m not proud of the tweet that started it and in hindsight wish I hadn’t reacted the way I did. See what happens when we assume “we’re” right and “they’re” wrong?
I really do believe I want what Mr. Pavlovitz wants and what Mr. Marx (the singer not Karl) wants and what everyone in the giant middle section of the bell curve probably want too.
I sincerely do.
If our political, social, and ideological positions didn’t get in the way, we’d likely be a lot closer than we are.
The Long Version 