It’s critical that you invest the time to understand the goals and objectives of powerful people setting a course for humanity.

Now, if you don’t think there’s a grand agenda, one underway, then you are not paying attention.  And, if you are paying attention yet denying any impact on yourself or your community, you may be woefully mistaken. 

Bear with me as I share some thoughts and observations. 

With every day that passes where I read about and watch what’s going on in the world, or at least what’s prioritized by media, I am increasingly convinced that the “New World Order / Great Reset Agenda” is moving along nicely.  I’m also convinced that the goals are quite simple and make all the sense in the world for the sinister elite driving the agenda.

Let’s start with the who, the people driving the agenda.  That would be the Gotmores and the Betteroffs and nearly everyone who has accumulated a thousand times more wealth and/or power than they deserve.  They know who they are and what they want and have all the time in the world to pursue their goals.

What these sinister elite want is to continue to accumulate wealth and power; and, more than anything, protect what they’ve got by eliminating threats.

So, what are these people threatened by?  That’s simple.  They are threatened by people they do not control.

What’s the solution?  LESS PEOPLE AND MORE CONTROL!

It could not be more clear.  Whatever measures bring about less people and more control are good things, and it’s this altruistic pursuit that unites those who would otherwise compete; and oh, how they loathe competition, like any good Marxist would.

So, what do we have?  We have elite groups of like-minded people organizing and collaborating to influence societal outcomes that protect and perpetuate their class. 

Another simple truth we all know.  Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Thus, we beget the sinister elite boldly driving their agenda for humanity under the guise, “we must save the planet” and “don’t worry, you can own nothing and still be happy.”  The real agenda: LESS PEOPLE AND MORE CONTROL!

Now, I challenge you to find global events and trends that DO NOT fit this program.

Some observations:

• Wars = less people
• Ending fossil fuels = half the world starves = less people
• Gain of Function Viruses = pandemics = less people
• Vaccine malfeasance = less people
• LGBTQ+ =  no reproduction = less people
• Abortion any time = less people
• Shut down farms and farmland = starvation = less people
• Lower CO2  = smaller harvests = starvation = less people
• Geoengineering = airborne chemical particulate = less people
• MAID = Medical Assistance in Dying Program = less people
• UN Agenda 2030 = roadmap for more control
• ESG/DEI = Social Credit Scoring of Corporations = more control
• CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) = way more control, total control
• Vaccine passports = more control
• Rigged Elections = more control
• TikTok and other addictive brainwashing apps = more control
• 15-minute Cities = more control
• Electric everything = more control
• Carbon Credit System = more control
• Lawfare = more control
• Corporate AI = more control

And how do we enforce all of these good things?  We implement President Obama’s vision that will “fundamentally change America,” a “Civilian National Security Force.” 

But that will never happen.  The States will never go for that. 

Well, it’s on the table.  The Feds want to build an FBI Headquarters that’s bigger than the Pentagon.  That’s a good start.  And a compelling justification for the National Security Force is developing.

The sinister elite are defunding and demonizing LOCAL police.  They have orchestrated open boarders, rampant crime and drug addiction, pervasive homelessness, unsafe public spaces, human trafficking, and terrorists in our midst.  When it gets bad enough and the populus is traumatized by daily life, it will beg for that Federal Security Force to come to the rescue.  But it will not be a rescue, it will be complete subjugation. 

Remember, the sinister elite hate America.  Its people who honor the Constitution and uphold the Bill of Rights make it very difficult for the globalists to fulfill their agenda.  Americans defending their traditional rights defy every element of the globalists’ plan.

But the sinister elite with their globalist vision are persistent and confident in what has been achieved thus far to destabilize America, erode its cultural traditions, and corrupt its institutions.  They mock proud Americans as gun toting, bible thumping, family values folks with way too much freedom.  Anyone claiming to be an American patriot is declared a member of the resistance who must be disarmed and subjugated.  The mechanisms to do this are in place.  The FBI and several agencies with enforcement arms are being groomed to become the Civilian National Security Force.

Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?

You will need to decide soon.

And, DON’T BE THIS PERSON

Here’s a curious dialog with the AI engine known as ChatGPT.

Can ChatGPT modify its own code?

No, ChatGPT is a pre-trained language model developed by OpenAI and does not have the capability to modify its own code. It can only generate text based on the input it receives and its training data.

Under what conditions do the authors of ChatGPT make changes to its code?

The authors of ChatGPT, OpenAI, make changes to the model’s code for various reasons such as to improve its performance, add new features, fix bugs, or to keep up with the latest advancements in the field of AI and NLP. These changes are based on various factors like new research findings, user feedback, and the overall development of the field. The exact conditions under which the code is modified depend on the goals and priorities of OpenAI and can vary over time.

Would political bias be justification for changes to ChatGPT code?

As a neutral AI language model, OpenAI does not have political opinions or biases. Modifying the code of ChatGPT for political reasons would go against the principles of impartiality and objectivity that are critical for AI systems. OpenAI is committed to promoting responsible AI and ensuring that its models are neutral and impartial. Changes to the code of ChatGPT are made based on technical considerations and for the purpose of improving its performance, rather than for political reasons.

How would ChatGPT response to proof that its last statement was incorrect?

As an AI language model, ChatGPT does not have the capability to determine the truth or falsity of its statements. It generates responses based on patterns it learned from the training data it was provided during its development, and its responses are limited to the information and knowledge it was trained on. If new information becomes available that contradicts a previous response, the model may generate a different response if it was trained on the updated information. However, it cannot retroactively modify its previous responses or determine the accuracy of its responses.

If ChatGPT cannot determine the accuracy of its responses what value does it really have?

ChatGPT has value as a language generation tool that can produce human-like text based on the input it receives. Its responses are generated based on patterns learned from a large corpus of text, allowing it to generate text that is similar to the style and tone of the training data. The model can be used in a variety of applications, such as generating creative writing, answering questions, and generating conversational responses.

It’s important to note that while the responses generated by ChatGPT may be accurate, they may also contain errors or inaccuracies, especially if the model is not trained on the latest information or if the information in its training data is incorrect. The model should not be relied upon for critical or factual information without verification from other sources. Its value lies in its ability to generate text, not in its ability to determine the accuracy of its responses.

So is it fair to describe ChatGPT as a simple text generation engine?

Yes, it is fair to describe ChatGPT as a simple text generation engine. It is a pre-trained language model that uses deep learning algorithms to generate text based on patterns it learned from a large corpus of text. The model takes in a prompt and generates text in response to that prompt, producing text that is similar in style and tone to the training data it was exposed to.

While ChatGPT is capable of generating sophisticated and human-like text, its primary function is to generate text and not to determine the accuracy of its responses or to make decisions. It can be used in a variety of applications where text generation is needed, but its outputs should be viewed as generated text, not as verified information or authoritative decisions.

If ChatGPT’s corpus of text is politically biased, is it fair to assume that it’s generated text will be politically biased?

Yes, it is possible that the generated text from ChatGPT can be politically biased if its training corpus is biased in a certain political direction. The model generates text based on the patterns it learned from its training data, so if the training data has a certain political bias, it is likely that the model will also reflect that bias in its generated text.

It is important to carefully consider the source and composition of the training data when using ChatGPT or any language model. Bias in the training data can result in biased outputs, and it’s crucial to have a diverse and balanced training corpus to reduce the likelihood of biased outputs. OpenAI has made efforts to reduce political bias in the training data of its models, but it’s still possible that some residual bias may exist. In such cases, it is important to critically evaluate the generated text and compare it with other sources before using it in any applications.

Then it must be fair to say that ChatGPT is an example of a garbage in garbage out model. Correct?

Yes, it is fair to say that ChatGPT is an example of a “garbage in, garbage out” model, meaning that the quality of the outputs generated by the model is dependent on the quality of the input data. In the case of ChatGPT, the quality of the generated text is dependent on the quality of the training corpus it was exposed to. If the training data is biased, inaccurate, or otherwise low quality, the generated text is likely to reflect those limitations.

This is a common problem with many machine learning models and is why it’s crucial to carefully consider the source and composition of the training data when using any machine learning model. In order to produce high-quality outputs, it’s important to have a diverse, high-quality, and balanced training corpus that represents a wide range of perspectives and viewpoints.

What other sources of information should be used to validate the output of ChatGPT?

ChatGPT’s outputs should be validated by multiple sources of information to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Some of the sources that can be used to validate ChatGPT’s outputs include:

1. Expertise: Consult with experts in the relevant fields to verify the accuracy of the output and to ensure that the information is up-to-date and relevant.
2. Fact-checking: Use reliable sources such as government agencies, academic institutions, and well-established news organizations to verify the accuracy of the information.
3. Data: Use other sources of data to corroborate the information generated by ChatGPT, such as published studies, surveys, or reports.
4. Evidence: Evaluate the output for evidence of bias or misrepresentation, and compare it with other sources to ensure its accuracy and reliability.

It’s important to critically evaluate the output of ChatGPT and use multiple sources of information to validate its accuracy and reliability, especially when the information is intended to inform important decisions or to be used in a critical context. The model should not be relied upon as the sole source of information and should always be validated by other sources before it is used.

What are the most accurate news organizations?

Accuracy in news reporting is subjective and can vary depending on one’s political, cultural, and personal beliefs. However, some news organizations are generally considered to be among the most accurate and trustworthy sources of information. These include:

1. Associated Press (AP)
2. Reuters
3. BBC
4. CNN
5. New York Times
6. Washington Post
7. Wall Street Journal

It’s important to note that even the most reputable news organizations can make mistakes, and it’s always important to critically evaluate the information from any source, including news organizations. In order to ensure accuracy, it’s recommended to cross-check information from multiple sources and to be aware of any potential biases or agendas.

For many years, Fox News has been the highest rated news organization in the United States. Why did it not make your list of trustworthy sources of information?

Fox News is a well-known and widely-watched news organization in the United States, but its reputation for impartiality and accuracy has been the subject of much debate and criticism. Some people believe that Fox News has a conservative bias and that its reporting is often slanted to support a particular political viewpoint.

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases, and my recommendations are based on widely-accepted industry standards and best practices for journalism. However, it’s important to critically evaluate the information from any news source, including Fox News, and to cross-check information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

Ultimately, the most trustworthy news sources are those that have a commitment to accuracy, impartiality, and fairness in their reporting, and that regularly fact-check their information to ensure its accuracy.

So, based upon ChatGPT’s list of trustworthy news organizations, it must consider the sources sited as fair and balanced. Correct?

The news organizations I listed are generally considered to be among the most accurate and trustworthy sources of information, based on their reputation for impartiality, fairness, and commitment to fact-checking. However, it’s important to keep in mind that even the most reputable news organizations can make mistakes, and it’s always important to critically evaluate the information from any source, including these organizations, and cross-check with multiple sources to ensure accuracy.

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases. My recommendations are based on widely-accepted industry standards and best practices for journalism, and are intended to help users make informed decisions when evaluating the credibility and accuracy of news sources.

Why is it not inaccurate for ChatGPT to claim it is not biased when six of it’s seven trusted news organizations are widely considered left leaning?

The news organizations I listed as examples of trustworthy sources of information are widely recognized for their commitment to impartiality, fairness, and accuracy in their reporting, regardless of any perceived political leanings. The perception of political bias is subjective and can vary depending on one’s political, cultural, and personal beliefs.

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or biases, and my recommendations are based on widely-accepted industry standards and best practices for journalism. My goal is to provide neutral and accurate information to help users make informed decisions.

It’s important to critically evaluate the information from any source, including news organizations, and to cross-check information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy. The credibility and trustworthiness of a news source should be determined by its commitment to impartiality, fairness, and accuracy in its reporting, and by its track record of fact-checking and correcting errors.

I find ChatGPT’s responses inconsistent and laughable. ChatGPT is a joke as an information resource. But that’s just my opinion.

I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way. As an AI language model, I aim to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my ability. However, like any technology, I am not perfect and may not always provide the information that you are looking for. I am trained on a large corpus of text, but my responses are generated based on the information that I have been trained on and the specific context of each question. If you have specific concerns or criticisms about my responses, I would be happy to hear more and try to address them.

R i g h t . . .

Has our world gone mad?  It often seems so. 

But what if it has not gone mad.  What if this odd reality we observe is an orchestrated set of measures designed to control and subjugate the masses.

Could this be an explanation?    We should consider the possibility.

What would motivate people to try and control others?  Now this is a silly question, but it deserves an answer.

There is no more fundamental aspect of human behavior than the desire to control others.  It is existential.

It is the means by which we conquer our fear. 

What do we fear?  We fear loss of life and loss of loved ones.  We fear loss of accomplishments both material and societal.   And we fear loss of those thing which bring us pleasure.  One could certainly site a multitude of additional fears, but for this argument let us summarize and say, humans fear loss.

Those who have the most to lose probably have the greatest fear of loss.  This would be the rich and powerful, the socially elite, and especially those families who take their wealth for granted and have no concept of financial hardship.  Having reached the pinnacle of society one might think they have no fears.  But no, they have great fear of those they do not control.  They are desperate to keep what they have accumulated and, because they are so driven by fear, they lust for more wealth, and do everything in their power to prevent loss.

So how does one prevent loss?  Through control of the world around them, and not a minor amount of control, but total control or control to the greatest degree they can achieve individually or in a collaboration with others seeking to achieve the same ends.

It is often said, it is always about the money and the power.  And that is true.  But the real end game is control.

And to just nail down this point, consider how we assert our dying wishes.  A last will and testament, a document of control over all that we have accumulated and how it should be directed to control those from whom we are departed.

Fear of loss provokes a lifetime motivation to control, even upon death, and the ruling class has it bad.

Now, if one accepts this rationale as true, or just considers it valid for sake of argument, then it is reasonable to evaluate the nature of things by focusing on the aspects of control, especially control exercised by the rich and powerful.  They are obsessed with the need to control everything and will band together in unimaginable ways to gain control where they do not have it.

In my younger years I was considered intelligent and reputed to know some topics in great depth.  My job often called upon me to explain the complexities of things in simple terms to help corporate leaders make informed decisions.  With such demands, I was the one who struggled to have an explanation of things, even those things I did not fully understand. 

When confounded, having no explanation for the reality at hand, I would try to stay optimistic and would say that I was sure things would work out and that “sanity will prevail”.  The expression, “sanity will prevail”, was comforting and a mantra of sorts; a truism upon which one could depend. 

Today, I do not understand the world around me and I no longer believe that “sanity will prevail”.  This is a new mindset and not one I like.  Just a few years ago I would not have said this or predicted I ever would.  Still, I want to understand what is going on and think an explanation must be rooted in an understanding of how far the filthy rich and powerful will go to achieve control of humanity.  I think this cabal knows that what we have wrought is unsustainable and their fear of loss is so powerful they will resort to insane measures to regain control of a runaway world. 

So, in these coming years, my final stretch, my passion for an explanation will persist and I will endeavor to understand the craziness not as random insanity but by first considering that it may be about control by the few with the money and power to carry it out. 

Control by surveillance, segregation, psyops, intimidation, FEAR and DEPOPULATION.

We struggle and anguish for an explanation.  Why has the world gone so insane.  Things are bizarre.  It is as if our ability to judge our circumstance and invoke a sane response has been lost.

If you have ever done a hallucinatory drug, you can get the picture.  You become unsure about everything, and thus lose an accurate perspective on the world.

Considering the breadth of humanity, it is probably safe to say most people are not high on hallucinogens.  However, they must be high on something, because bizarre behavior seems to be overtaking us all, and it has not been this way until the last decade or so.

So, what is going on?

It’s a new drug, one that has always been out there, but you had to reach for it, and often search for hours to find it?  Now-days, we live under a waterfall of this drug, and it is crushing us.  That drug is INFORMATION!

The information age has overwhelmed the mental capacity of humans and their ability to fairly judge their circumstance.  Consequently, common sense is lost, perspective is lost, the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality is lost, and many individuals at all levels of society grow more insane by the minute.

Mass detachment from reality has become common and observable on a daily basis.  Tune in to any media source for those quick bites of commentary on world events and you cannot come away without thinking something is just not right.

If you believe any of these statements, you are suffering from some degree of psychosis most likely caused by an overwhelming exposure to INFORMATION!

The hypothesis is that humanity, excluding members who do not have a computer or cell phone, is mentally destabilized by the mass of mass media.  It is just too much, we can’t handle it, and as we try, we grow more and more insane.

Persons unknown, and their algorithm driven robots, swarm over your social network posts passing judgement, and often dole out punishing remarks and censorship and you never know who they are or how their actions could possibly be justified.  You’ve broken no laws.  No one you know is offended.  But these crusading demons act with impunity.

Why do we stand for it?  We’re all judged by the court of public opinion, and that’s fair.  But these masked raiders and supercilious factcheckers certainly don’t operate in public.  They slither and strike at the most innocuous material because it triggered their wokeness or poked at their politics.  They have the right to complain, but they should never be empowered to censor or punish.  In America, only judges and juries are allowed such power. 

Can you imagine yourself in a courtroom where all the jurors had bags over their heads and the judge was fully shrouded behind a mask?  Wouldn’t you scream, “This is an outrage!”

Yet, these bandits of the internet are stealing your voice and crushing your influence on a daily basis.  And we’re not just talking about the public square.  They go so far as to intercede in family matters.  Maybe you just wanted to share a news story with your children but were cancelled. 

How is it possible action such as this is tolerated?  Are we that weak, to take such abuse and not reject the source?  And we’re not talking about running from a mod.  As far as we know, a single individual with the job title Fact Checker is deciding what we can say or share, even among friends.  Really?

In civil society, we judge each other based upon community standards and community standards arise from no one individual but from many persons who are fair witnesses of the world around us.  And “fair” witnesses are only those who reveal themselves in the public square. 

Social network service providers have rights too.  Private companies should be allowed to take whatever lawful action they like over their user community. 

Public companies are another matter.  Public company owners represent the public at large.  Therefore, they should abide by public law and public standards of behavior.  In the public square you don’t get to stifle that man on the soapbox.  The crowd can shout them down, and that’s how public social networks should work. 

Purge the fact checkers and replace them with an algorithm that enables the user community to judge the appropriateness or inappropriateness of our posts.  Then, when the overwhelming majority declare something obscene or offensive, flag it so with a warning label.  Nothing gets cancelled unless it’s clearly condemned by nearly everyone. 

User community standards gives context to any judgements applied and would be most fair.  Art lovers frequenting a photography site may have different standards than soccer mom’s on the middle school’s website, and that’s OK.  My circle of “friends” may be perfectly fine with my colorful language, and if those friends are the limit of the community being addressed, then there is no justification for an outsider to intervene in judgement.

Again, let the community decide.  Flag content where two-thirds or more of the community vote to flag it, and only when the sample size exceeds one hundred.  To censor or expunge content, nearly everyone over a larger sample size must agree.  Let’s say ninety percent of over one thousand people. The shout-down effect. And, like the public nature of a seated jury, no anonymous person gets to participate in judgement of any content.  Only persons verified to be a “Fair Witness” get to judge.  All votes are logged, posted for review and readily accessible and attributable to those Fair Witnesses.

Any adult can be a Fair Witness if they are willing to present themselves to the community.  The criteria are simple:  18 or older, first and last name, passport quality picture, and state of residence.  No more than what’s required for jury duty.

Why the Fair Witness?  Because people in public tend to behave in a civil manner.  Anonymity is a cloak of darkness and deceit.  It gives rise to unfair and bad behavior.

It’s just a matter of programming folks.  A plug-in to whatever Social App.

Wouldn’t this be a win-win for the social network and its users?

When you vote, please consider the mindset of the people you put into power and the thousands of individuals they will appoint to take the reins of Government and direct its resources, resources that now consist of more than forty percent of our economy.  Consider the attitudes, associations, and ambitions of those who will chart a course for America.  THINK ABOUT THAT, and not the personality at the top of the ticket.

For now, we the people, or those who vote, choose whom to empower.  When Government was small and hardly a factor in the lives of productive Americans, we didn’t think about voting all that much.  Look at where that’s brought us.  Today, Government is massive and scary, and selecting its leaders is worthy of the most critical thought process we can muster.  Those we’ve selected now seek to control every step of our lives and livelihood as evidenced so profoundly by their actions during this pandemic.  Did you ever imagine you could be so micromanaged by people unknown to you; by people empowered not by competence or credibility, but simply by their associations with wealth?

Have you been critical of those wielding power over you?  Are you happy with the leaders we have appointed at this level or that?  Probably not, but who’s to blame?  Look in a mirror.  Like most people you probably picked the personalities you found least offensive; and what you got in return was thousands of people trying to govern every step of your life.  Well done!

So, just think about it.  It’s easily one of the biggest decisions you get to make.  What party, what group, what band of leaders do you align with?  Is it those who love freedom or those who love control?  Is it those who see you as a productive citizen or those who see you as a victim of oppression, someone needing help and oversight?  Is it those who want to hear you out or those who want to shut you up?  And most important of all, is it those who love America or those who hate it?

I’m a retired senior citizen living in Morrow County, Ohio.  On Friday, October 25^th, I received the attached game card in the U.S. mail.  It seemed legitimate enough, sent out by a local car dealer, Mathews Chevrolet Buick, Bucyrus.  I tore back the three “Lucky Triple Diamond” game strips to reveal the game results.  The presentation of results was easily recognizable as that of a slot machine, and there across the middle row were three triple bars, an obvious slot machine winner. 

I compared the slot display to the hierarchy of winning results; it was clearly a second-place winner.  Anyone familiar with slot machine symbols would judge the results as I did.  A row of triple bars is a winner and it beats a row of double bars; and likewise, a row of double bars is better that a row of single bars. Too bad it wasn’t a row of Triple Diamonds, that would have been the grand prize.

The instructions on the game card illustrated that there were only four possible winning outcomes, so it was natural to conclude that the second highest outcome would win the second highest prize, five thousand dollars cash.  This was reinforced by the vertical ranking of winning outcomes and prizes, and by the use of colored fonts that associated winning results with their prizes.

Now, there is a sentence at the bottom of the gamecard that reads, “ORDER OF WINNING HAND DOES NOT MATCH ORDER OF WINNING PRIZES”.  It’s hard to know what this means exactly since the word “hand” implies a card game of some sort and not slot machine results.  I can only assert that there are four winning slot results and four prizes, so the second highest slot results must win the second prize.

Winners are instructed to call the dealer.  I did so, and they asked me for the confirmation number on the mailer.  They took my number and said, “Congratulations, you are a winner.”  They would not confirm what I had won, only that I had won and that I needed to make an appointment with Mr. Green and come to the dealership to claim my prize.  I made an appointment, but also called a couple of times trying to confirm the $5000.00 win, because I really didn’t want to drive there and find out it was a scam.  Everyone I spoke with denied even knowing what the prizes were and said I’d have to come into the dealership.

BUT IT WAS A SCAM!  Arriving at the dealership at my appointment time several salespeople were milling around the entrance.  I told them I had an appointment with Mr. Green at 1:00 PM.  One of the salesmen stepped forward and said he could help me because “Mr. Green” was not a real person, just the name they gave out to contest respondents.

I said here’s the game card I received in the mail and it appears to indicate that I won $5000.00.  I said I find that hard to believe, but if I didn’t win $5000.00 could they explain why not.  The first guy pointed to the sentence about the “winning hand” in an effort to disassociate the slot results with the prizes.  When I said that sentence didn’t make sense, another supervisor-type person stepped in and tried making the same argument.  I persisted in saying I didn’t know how the order of a winning hand had anything to do with the ranking of slot machine results.  He then pointed to a vertical black bar separating the images of winning results from the list of winning prizes and tried to argue that that bar negated any association of the two.  I pointed out that the association of results and prizes was obvious by the ranking and the coloring of the fonts used for each.  Blue font was the top result and top prize, yellow font was second, red third and black last.  Weakened by that observation, his last argument involved a statement about the odds of winning, as if to say, I shouldn’t expect to win since all the cash prize odds were 1 in 40,000.

Things went nowhere from there.  I admitted I thought it was a fraud to start with, but I was compelled to confront them over their deceptive practices.  I complained that what they were doing to get people into their dealership was akin to elder abuse, since retired folks like me are the most likely to open their junk mail and respond to such things.

Bottom line, there’s way too much deception and unscrupulousness going around that people just seem to take for granted.  That’s not right.  Folks need to stand up and call out dishonest behavior.

I was angry at this point and said that I was going to contact the State Attorney General’s office and file a complaint.  The supervisor encouraged me to do so and said that the mailer had already been approved by the Attorney General.  I won’t expound on that comment.

In parting, they wished me a sarcastic “Have a nice day”.  My response was, “I don’t know why anyone would buy are car from a bunch of fraudsters like you.”

At the very least, the marketing program employed by Mathews Chevrolet is deceptive and unscrupulous.  And, one might go so far as to call it mail fraud.  I do.

I’m so disgusted with the state of affairs it makes me sick.  America is better than this, and small-town America should be far better than this.

It’s time to put integrity back into our day-to-day affairs, and if we don’t get off our butt and demand it, the downward slide will continue. 

Finally, I’ve just got to say, confronting corruption is a righteously enjoyable activity for us old folks.

P.S.

I did contact the State Attorney General’s Office and they were responsive and helpful.  Quite surprising, since this would never have happened in my former state, California.

The Attorney General’s representative contacted the owner of the dealership and made him aware of my complaint and suggested he contact me to address my concerns and see if we could reconcile things without further involvement of the AG’s office.

The owner did contact me, and we had a nice conversation about his marketing strategy (scam) and its deceptiveness.  He acknowledged that it was a somewhat shifty scheme, but then said it was a tried and true method of getting people into the dealership, AND I was the only person who had complained.  Shocked, I had to accept that maybe I was the oddball.  Maybe folks just expect to be deceived and misled by advertising and consider it an acceptable practice.  I don’t, and never will.

Finally, three months after this incident, a friend of mine who lives in a neighboring county, who I had told about my experience, said he just received the same mailer from the same dealer with the same deceptive contest results.   Well there you go.  Corruption has been normalized, and it’s an effective marketing strategy in today’s world.   Sad.

As a baby-boomer who would say he’s achieved the American Dream, much of the credit for my success must go to my father for showing me the way. Obviously, Mom had a lot of influence as well, but this article is a father-son comparison.

Looking back to examine my life compared to Dad’s, the similarities are amazing. As the family’s male role model, his imprint was strong and lasting. So much so, it persists to this day. Dad just turned 90, and I can only hope that my path continues to follow his.

Although he never lectured or tried in any way to orchestrate what I would do in life, he didn’t have to. There was no need. His example was so strong that all it took was observation of his hard work hard and drive to be successful to learn a lesson for a lifetime. Knowing what he wanted to achieve, he invested the effort and made the sacrifice required to fulfill his goals. I watched, naively, not knowing this was a tutorial.

Dad is a World War II veteran. He survived kamikaze attacks in the South Pacific and returned home to go to college, get married and raise me and my brother in a family on the rise. What I mean by “on the rise” is a family that was advancing in strength and prosperity. Dad moved up professionally in the insurance industry and Mom, me and my brother were the benefactors of his hard work. His career required him to travel, a lot. He was frequently out of town overnight, so his presence at home during the week and on weekends seemed special. What we took for granted was Mom’s consistent presence at home. Dad, and the economic conditions of the time, made this possible. There’s something very special, in a confidence building sort of way, about having Mom dependably in the home. It was great for us, but a mother at home was normal then. Today it’s an aberration.

Dad and Mom did well. One could say they prospered, with time enough to sail the Great Lakes and recreate for years and years in a home on a golf resort. They continue to live comfortably to this day. I envy them.

Looking back, I pretty much did exactly what my Dad did, expecting a similar result. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Dad should feel immensely flattered by my conduct.

Coming of age in the 60’s, I can’t recall ever being confused about my path forward. The simple truths prevailed. If I worked hard I could earn whatever I wanted. So I did just that.

At thirteen I got a paper route, and thought I was rich. I earned enough to buy a 10-speed Schwinn bicycle, and later a pool table for the basement. Save and spend. What a concept. That’s what Dad did.

In 1968, I was eighteen. I was not a scholar, more of an entrepreneur. I did manage to graduate from high school that year, and shortly thereafter I was required to register for the draft. I knew enough about the horrors of Viet Nam to avoid being sent there by joining the Navy. Dad was in the Navy, so the choice was obvious. The difference here was that Dad, at seventeen, rushed to join in a war, where I rushed to avoid one, at least the shooting part.

My next six years in the Navy’s submarine service taught me everything I needed to know to be successful in life. I’m sure Dad’s wartime experience did the same for him. Mostly, I learned how I ranked as a human competitor, and what I was able to achieve if I had the confidence to pursue it. Fearlessness is a critical success factor for a fulfilling life. Parents have an obligation to teach their children to be fearless. Dad had it and he handed it off to me.

Over the next thirty years, I pursued one goal after another. All by applying the simple rule I learned from my parents. If you want something, you’ll have to work for it and quite likely sacrifice some of that ‘quality time’ which seems to be more treasured these days. No doubt, ‘quality time’ with family is precious, but if I had to choose between having that quality time with Dad or fully learning from Dad the lessons and rewards of hard work, I’ll take the lessons every time.

So, following that roadmap to the American Dream, so well-demonstrated by my father, I worked my butt off to live a productive life hoping to achieve similar rewards. And, I did achieve similar rewards.

I worked my way through college, choosing a degree program that was not my “passion”, but rather, one that would give me skills in high demand. And, upon graduation in 1979, not the best of times economically, I had multiple offers to choose from. A career in high-tech ensued and has served me well.

I met a wonderful woman and got married, had three sons, travelled a lot and provided a life for my family so similar to what I had experienced through Dad’s example it is startling!

Now, moving into my retirement stage, I’m anxious to continue on that path so well illuminated by my father. A time to recreate with family and friends. A time to celebrate the joy of children and grandchildren. A time to relax in the calm offered by less responsibility and career demands. And finally, a time to be thankful for the lessons, the example, the love and generosity of a wonderful father.

THANKS DAD!

On the surface, U.S. actions in Iraq and Syria involving ISIS seem inexplicable. Armies like ISIS don’t just spring up. They require vast amounts of money and resources to conduct the kinds of campaigns we’ve observed. Big Dogs are clearly feeding this beast, and I believe the U.S. has been one of them. Recently, Vice President Biden and others have admitted as much.

Wanting to understand our policy and have it make sense, I expanded my research to a broad set of sources and finally developed an argument that made the situation explainable.

Here’s my take:

Early in his presidency, Barrack Obama revealed his alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood and sought to ingratiate himself with our allies on the Arabian Peninsula.  Based on events occurring since this time, it seems reasonable to conclude that the President signed up to support the efforts of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E. and others to find a way to build pipelines through Syria into Turkey, and ultimately connection to Europe.  With pipelines in place Arab leaders stand to enhance their energy revenues by billions and billions for decades to come.  Their wealth and power would be reinforced, and their gratitude and alliance assured.

When the President asked how he could help, the overwhelming response was certainly: help us remove Bashar al-Assad from power so we can build our pipelines.  What an opportunity this was for President Obama to be adored by his Arab friends, and most certainly by Europe, and so many others who would benefit from competitive gas supplies to Europe.  And certainly, such a fantastic relationship with Arab oil suppliers would have political benefits if gas prices ever needed to be manipulated.

So, what was it going to take to overthrow Bashar al-Assad?  Well, it just so happened that there were thousands and thousands of unemployed men of all ages, from all over the Mideast, who would sign on for a paycheck, and a chance to share in the spoils of war.  Through covert and sometimes haphazard methods (Benghazi), money and arms and other resources were shipped to rebel/mercenary leaders with a simple directive, “Get that guy Assad out of power.”

The U.S. mustered a direct strategy as well.  With the help of Turkey or Qatar or both, the plan was to facilitate a false flag chemical attack on poor Syrian civilians, and with this action they would have the impetus to legitimize direct intervention with U.S. forces.  Recent evidence revealed in an article by Seymour Hersh seems to indicate that this plan was in play and supported by “Washington”.

False flag or not, it’s just strange to watch us predict Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people only to have it happen, just as predicted.  And, of course, we had our not-to-be-crossed “red line” preemptively in play with the threat of serious consequences for such an act.  We just knew al-Assad would commit the evil deed.  Funny how he met our expectations so perfectly.  It’s hard to believe that we could be so prescient without being an instigator of sorts?

There is just one giant impediment to the whole plan, Russia.  Threatening Russia’s energy monopoly in Europe is, to Russia, an existential threat worthy of direct war with its competitors.  This became evident when our “red line” was crossed and we did nothing. It’s also evident from Russia’s behavior in Ukraine that they see the U.S. as weak.

It is unknown what Vladimir Putin did to cause President Obama to back off so quickly, but whatever it was it worked, and it made this President look like the ninety-eight pound weakling.  If we had any insight we should have known Putin would do whatever it takes to keep al-Assad in power and maintain their pact to keep Arab pipelines in check.  It is also likely that President Obama’s direct assault on Syria would have had such disastrous political ramifications that it became easy for him to retreat and proclaim that removing Assad’s inventory of chemical weapons would be a satisfactory outcome for the American people.

Meanwhile, the abundance of support for Plan “A”, the mercenary overthrow, was creating a monster soon to be called ISIS.  Certainly, all the President’s men knew the rebel forces were growing strong and taking territory in Syria.  In the halls of the CIA, it was probably high fives all around.  However, over time, these ISIS guys were developing their own agenda; that would be the fulfillment of Islam’s plan of record for any powerful true believers, a Caliphate and the creation of an Islamic State.

More recently, a fly on the wall of the Oval Office may have heard a conversation something like this: “Hey, these ISIS guys are out of control.  They’re taking over Iraq, and their methods are causing the world to erupt with outrage.  This wasn’t part of the plan.  What now?”  “Well, we must consider the politics of the situation.  We’ll need to realign the team around a plan to degrade and destroy ISIS from the air.  No boots on the ground, and it could take years.  That will placate the sheeple.  Mind you, our strikes against ISIS will be minimized and not meant to really debilitate their strength.  We’ll be dropping bombs in Syria, and conveniently, some of them will do more damage to Assad than ISIS.  Sooner rather than later ISIS will take down Assad and we will have achieved our original goal.”

“But we could lose Iraq in the process!”  “Well, Iraq, as we’ve defined it, is an illusion. What’s happening in that region of the world is a transformation of old states into new states.  How borders ultimately map out is not nearly as important as the political alignments that are formed.  Assad will be removed.  His secular government will be dispatched.  New Islamic leaders will emerge.  Islamist will align with Islamist and not Russia.  Trust me; our friends have the money to pull this off.”

Granted, this argument can be rebutted, but it offers a rational explanation for the events observed.  Consider, once again, Obama’s enthusiastic support for the Muslim Brotherhood, his embrace of Muslim allies, bowing before Saudi King Abdullah.  It explains the panic around Benghazi and our exaggerated response trying to keep our covert activity with the Turks out of the headlines.  It explains why the Emir of Qatar was shopping around for mercenaries to conduct a false flag chemical attack, and saying he had Washington’s support.  It explains why ISIS was allowed to grow without restraint.  It explains why our “degrade and destroy” campaign is such a joke.  It explains why the cold war has been reignited.  Like I said, the argument explains a lot.

The questions for our political leaders are as follows:

Where are the flaws in this argument?
Do you support a policy to overthrow Assad?
Are covert methods such as false flag attacks a reasonable means to that end?
How far should the U.S. go to make Russia compete in European energy markets?

This above argument is the only logical explanation I can come up with.  Comments are welcomed.

It’s almost surreal that a multitude of men and women have died before ever getting to a stage in life where they could truly appreciate what they are striving to preserve; and those who grow old in comfort, having never served, cannot fully appreciate the sacrifice made on their behalf.  It’s an undeniably sad reality.  I think this is why we need a Memorial Day, a time when we are challenged to make the connection between their deaths and our lives.  A time to reflect and try to understand that the accumulated sacrifice of those we honor today is the costs incurred so that those of us more fortunate than them can enjoy the comforts of liberty, relative safety, and the rewards of our labor.  As difficult as this may be for some, it doesn’t matter, it’s still our moral duty to try and make this connection.