Friday, February 3, 2017

A Principle of Principles

Sarah Haider, co-founder of The Ex-Muslims of North America, has composed a Twitter Article, a series of twenty-one (21)Tweets, urging liberals to hold onto principle throughout this extended period of chaos coinciding with the migration of Islamic violence across the world and the unexpected election of Donald Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

Sarah paints a picture of Far Right and Far Left extremists using news reports of violence as further justification of their world views. Extremists view each other as incapable of change. There are moderates in both camps who attempt to meet in the middle.  They are under pressure by the wings who are calling them out as traitors for proposing moves that enable the opponents to make progress.  If this pressure on the middle continues, the only ones left will be the extremists and lines will be drawn and calls to battle will ensue.  She ends her article exhorting us to hold onto principle.

What is a principle? It is a fundamental proposition that serves as a foundation for a chain of reasoning. Is a principle, by this definition, un-provable as to “rightness”? For example, some theists adopt the principle that a book is the word of a supernatural being who has all of the answers.  They do not try to prove this proposition.  Instead, they adopt it as an article of faith.  Is this a valid principle? If not, they should ignore entreaties to hold on to it and seek a more valid principle. This implies that rational principles should be backed up with what would have to be other principles.  There should be a chain of logic throughout the building of a principle. At the basis of the chain should be a piece of evidence, something we observe to be unquestionably true.  Otherwise we live based on nothing but on the articles of faith of our ancestors.

The view on the Right seems to be supported by visible evidence.   They see the tyranny of Islam, pushing across the EU and seeking to increase its footprint inside the United States.  The moderates recognize that, trapped in the migrating crowd, are millions of folks who are trapped inside the religion by its violent shepherds, boys educated to the point of insanity in Saudi funded mosques, now grown up as imams, mullahs and sheiks, bearing arms, and, indeed, almost incapable of reason. The hideous gods of Islam are alive in their brains, they fear their burning eternal punishment and thus they kill the young and the old, without remorse, to honor their various interpretations of Gods and Allahs. If we were viewing these events on another planet, our diagnosis would be that they are mentally afflicted by irrational ideas repeating like jingle bell memes inside their heads. We would say they are in need of interdiction, capture, restraint, separation form each other and perhaps a decade of re-education.  The Right looks about the world and sees that we do not have enough institutions or professionals to incarcerate and heal the violent and finally free the people trapped in a religion they never asked for, to which they must proclaim adherence.  Even the extremists on the far Right sympathize with the women and children trapped in Islam.

The view from the Left is supported by an observation that Donald Trump is unqualified for the Oval Office and must be opposed, with riots or whatever other means are thought to have reasonable chances for effectiveness.  Admonitions of assassinations and explosions at the White House are raised with abandon.  They are serious, they mean business. They have already sounded the clarions and we see the results in the streets and on the campuses of America. Like the tyranny of Islam, the Left is not allowing objection. Opposing views are not tolerated for more than the few seconds it takes to begin speaking. They are shutting down the voices of the opposition with violence.

A new view from the Middle is becoming apparent. It is a scientific assessment, unencumbered by religion.  It appears as if the ideological content of the tyranny of Islam has mutated and evolved, invading the brains of the Left, who has had its logical defenses weakened by a few decades of general degradation of educational content in schools and universities across the land.  In other words, this is a real problem in biology, a species driving itself into ant-like battles, driven by ideologies, that can objectively result in an evolutionary benefit of preventing over-population, at the risk, in this human case, of species extinction by nuclear war. Sarah is right, we live in times of great risk, we must proceed with caution.

Mixed in here somewhere is Vladimir Putin. Yes, he can be criticized in so many ways, but if we survive this century our descendants will have a more clarified view.  Coming out of the chaos resulting from the disassembly of the Soviet Union there remained strong rational control over thousands of nuclear armaments.  None of them have exploded and it is only Vladimir Putin who has made this possible.  Now, this is viewed on the left as sacrilegious, to state anything positive about Putin. I am just quoting our unborn descendants in the future, who, if they are there at all, are not so hopelessly as confused as we.

It is easy to have reservations about Donald Trump.  The very idea he could be elected seemed so remote as late as October of 2016. But I have been sharply impressed with a few of his gut instincts and he is right about Putin: We should carefully seek to engage Russia as an ally in the goal of creating a world of peace. This is not to suggest bind faith in anything at all, much less to express the childish tantrums of blind faith from the extreme Left in that nothing possibly good can result from this.  We proceed with care and circumspection, and we seek to invite the leadership of China as well, and we get to know each other.  And, why not Mexico eventually, and that increasingly paranoid young man who runs North Korea? What is Kim Jong-Un really made of after all? Perhaps association with rational leadership is the education he needs. Must we assume it is a hopeless case? Let us learn if it is instead.

And out of this analysis arises the vision of a piece of evidence, a principle of  principles: The existence of a world of peace on earth. If such is not our goal, then we have no rational goals, all of our principles are borne of ignorance.  It is towards a world of peace that the middle must converge, and the middle must see, acknowledge and declare the simple observable moral truth arising out of the existence of thinking human beings: We are our brother’s keepers. We never needed a bible or a Quran to see this truth.  We are to allow our siblings freedom of belief, because we know they will fight for it if we restrict it.  Therefore, we all shall have it. To choose otherwise is simply to escale this current battle to its sad and pridictable denouement. And at the end of the day that is what this current conflagration is all about: Liberty and all that it implies.  All other planets live in conditions of slavery to dictatorship, or they live in risky times like ours, or they have gained entrance to that wonderful place, a beautiful world of peace.

I conclude this article with a link to Sarah’s twenty-one tweets. The reader should allow a broad interpretation as she struggles to make her points under the constraints of 140 characters per tweet.  They start here:

Sunday, January 29, 2017

The Art of #FakeNews

The Art of #FakeNews

Here is a true Da Vinci. A USA Today article, written by Jared Goyette, a writer for Public Radio International.  Click the link below to read it:
The moustache on this Mona Lisa is the fact that what is purported to being "now clear" is not clear at all. The first hint of something amiss is that the author does not give a link to the data that supports his claims. There is a reason for this as will be seen below.

Later in the article, it is hinted that the whole thing comes out of a phone call with folks running the Obama Administration’s US Citizenship and Immigration Service. (USCIS) Sure enough, a poke around their website yields a transcript of the telephone call that took place on August 5th, 2016, 3 days before the publication of the article.

During the presidential campaign at this time, Donald Trump and his team were raising questions about the vetting of Syrian refugees.  It appears this phone call was hastily arranged to provide a refutation of Trump’s claims. A few writers were invited to this phone call, the purpose being to provide a data source for the refutations.

Because, as it turns out, hard data WAS available.  As a matter of fact, it is the job of USCIS to provide an annual report on immigration demographics, coinciding with the Federal Fiscal Year.  However, this year, no report was to be published.  For some strange reason, it is missing.  The fiscal year ended on September 30, 2016, and now, at the end of January 2017, there is still no report to be found.

During this phone call, Anne Richard of USCIS read a few scant statistics from the hard data.  Callers were asking questions and she would respond “…we should be able to get that for you, just a minute, wait…”  as if the data was coming in on radio waves from some alien planet, scrambled by the background radiation at the rim of the cosmic sphere.

The articles author, Jared Goyette,  was one of the invited writers and he asks some questions that Richard could not answer during the recorded conversation, indicating she would follow up after participants had disconnected. Then, a short time later, this curious exchange takes place, quoted verbatim as fair use:

Coordinator:   Our next question comes from (Esa Gomez) with ABC News. Your line is open.

(Esa Gomez):   I was wondering out of the 8,000 of the admitted refugees how many of them were children?

Anne Richard:  I should - we should have that number for you. Seventy eight percent were women and children and the number of children we’ll have to get you but let’s see  - nearly - let’s see, 4,576 were under 18 - just a little under half female and roughly half male of the children.

(Esa Gomez):    Is that of the children or women and children?

Anne Richard:  So the first number I gave you the 78% were women and children. And then the second that’s 78% out of 8,000. And then the number of children is - or under 18 year olds (sic) is 4,576 and they’re roughly half and half men and - girls and boys rather.

(Esa Gomez):   Oh okay, thank you.

Please do make a note of Anne Richard’s Freudian Slip, ("men and girls").

Esa Gomez asked a relatively simple question:  How many children were included in the number of Syrian Refugees admitted to the USA so far in the fiscal year?  The total admitted was ‘estimated’ at 8000 although clearly Anne Richard was reading from hard data to get the quite specific count of 4,576 children.  What was the true number admitted? USCIS folks were repeating ‘we are talking about 8000…’ but why this special grouping?  Wasit really exactly 8000?  Were there more than that?  Why not just release the data?  Well, we know why.  The purpose of this phone call was to manipulate the numbers in order to refute Trump.

Note that Anne Richard did not directly answer Esa Gomez question.  She gave this strange answer:  78% were women and children.  And then, she tuned in her space radio for help from above and miraculously it came through, an exact number: 4,576. The puzzled Esa Gomez asked for clarification but then the transmission apparently broke up and the clarification only confused things further.  Esa Gomez's brain imploded and she gave up.

Why was the agency eager to give out this 78% number? And to repeat it as 78% of 8000, almost like 78% is almost 8000 all by itself?  Is she trying to imply that only 22% were men? We know the answer now; the Obama administration has always been counting on the hope that the American public has been subjected to sufficient brain degradation by the dumbing down of the American educational system over the past decade. In other words, they think everyone is, to put it kindly, mentally adrift, and treats them as if they are.

Let’s take Anne Richard’s number at face value and have a hard look.  In the table that follows, the top section is hard data that can support her claims, if indeed we are only talking about 8000 total Syrian Refugees.  We have to estimate these numbers because the real data is missing.  Nobody closer than 14.5 billion light years away seems to know where it is. I have marked her figures in red:

Gender Category Age Group Count Percentage
male adult men 18 or 0ver 1760 22.00%
male older kids 15 to 17 2271 28.39%
male young kids 0 to 14 123 1.54%
female young kids 0 to 14 161 2.01%
female older kids 15 to 17 2021 25.26%
female adult women 18 or over 1664 20.80%
Total 8000 100.00%
all genders adults 18 or 0ver 3424 42.80%
all genders older kids 15 to 17 4292 53.65%
all genders young kids 0 to 14 284 3.55%
all genders all kids 0 to 17 4576 57.20%
male all 0 + 4154 51.93%
female all 0 + 3846 48.08%
male all kids 0 to 17 2394 29.93%
female all kids 0 to 17 2182 27.28%
all all kids 0 to 17 4576 57.20%
all adults 18 or over 3424 42.80%
ration of female kids to all kids 0 to 17 47.68%
ration of male kids to all kids 0 to 17 52.32%
adult women + all kids 6240 78.00%
adult men + all kids 6336 79.20%
male adult + older kids military 4031 50.39%

The blue figures are the ones most germane to this discussion, but Anne Richards would not speak to those.  I believe this is a fair interpretation.  You are welcome to come up with one of your own as long as it supports Anne Richard’s figures.  In all events, your extrapolation would not be far removed from mine. I have faithfully kept true to her 78% women and children claim, although it implies that the percentage of men and children come in at 79.2 % (!) In other words, she gave the data in a manner that implied only 22% of the refugees were males when in truth, there were more males than females admitted.

This is the signature of the never-ending stream of #FakeNews coming out of the Obama Administration and its cohorts, the main stream media, that ultimately cost Hillary her virtual lock on the election.  She might consider filing a lawsuit against the entire lot of them.

So, as it turns out, 52% of the admitted refugees are male, 48% female.  And as Anne says, the number of male and female children breaks roughly in half.  Quite roughly.

The table concludes with an extrapolation of data that was concerning the American public leading up to the election:  How many military aged males were being admitted by the Obama Administration in their hurried effort during the latter half of 2016?

Indeed, what is the TRUE number?  We have given Anne Richards the benefit of the doubt here, but given her blatant attempt to mislead, she has perhaps, for this matter, abandoned appeals to kindness.  Let us take another hard look at this data, and extend it out to meet the projected goal of 13,000 Syrian refugees.  I have used the same data above, adding in the required number of males that bring the total to 13,000 and remain true to her one fact, 4,576 children:

Gender Category Age Group Count Percentage
male adult men 18 or 0ver 6760 52.00%
male older kids 15 to 17 2271 17.47%
male young kids 0 to 14 123 0.95%
female young kids 0 to 14 161 1.24%
female older kids 15 to 17 2021 15.55%
female adult women 18 or over 1664 12.80%
Total 13000 100.00%
all genders adults 18 or 0ver 8424 64.80%
all genders older kids 15 to 17 4292 33.02%
all genders young kids 0 to 14 284 2.18%
all genders all kids 0 to 17 4576 35.20%
male all 0 + 9154 70.42%
female all 0 + 3846 29.58%
male all kids 0 to 17 2394 18.42%
female all kids 0 to 17 2182 16.78%
all all kids 0 to 17 4576 35.20%
all adults 18 or over 8424 64.80%
ration of female kids to all kids 0 to 17 47.68%
ration of male kids to all kids 0 to 17
adult women + all kids 6240 48.00%
adult men + all kids

11336 87.20%

male adult + older kids military age 9031 69.47%

70 percent military aged males, 30 percent female.  An army of 9,000 men.  When we take Somalia and other hastily admitted regions into consideration, this size of Islam’s army jumps alarmingly above 50,000 men. This roughly coincides with the 70+% military male experience currently crushing the European Union, where Islam is running amok, raping and killing at will.

Granted, this second table of data is estimated as a worst case scenario, but absent the real data how can we know? Which is the truth?  It is here in this second table above, or somewhere in between. In any case, it is one of the reason’s that Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)can resolve the question completely by publishing the data.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

The Cause of Existence

The Cause of Existence

The cause of existence can be determined by analyzing the truth value of the following two propositions:
1:   The existence of nothing is impossible.
2:   The existence of nothing is possible.

Analysis of Proposition 1:

If the existence of nothing is impossible, then existence is eternal, there being no alternative. While we can say that therefore existence is caused by nothing, it may instead be true that it is the threat of the existence of nothing that causes existence. This can be postulated as a physical law and explored for predictive qualities. For now, we are left with two possibilities:
1.1:   Existence is caused by nothing.
1.2:   Existence is caused by the threat of the existence of nothing.

Analysis of Proposition 2: 

If the existence of nothing is possible, we must analyze two further possibilities:
2.1:   The existence of nothing has not occurred in the past.
2.2:   The existence of nothing has occurred in the past.

Analysis of propositions 2.1 and 2.2:

  • If the existence of nothing is possible but has not occurred in the past, then we are saying it is possible for it to occur in the future.
  • In order for this to happen, existence would have to change to a form that forces the existence of nothing.
  • We observe that after billions of years this has not occurred.
  • If it is nevertheless possible, then we must assume that a sufficient amount of time is required for it to occur.
  • However this scenario specifies that it has not occurred in the past and thus existence would be eternal in the past.
  • We cannot postulate a span of time in the future that is greater than the span of time in the eternal past.
  • Therefore if it is true that the existence of nothing is possible, then the span of time in the past is sufficient for it to have occurred at least once.
  • Therefore, if the existence of nothing is possible then it has occurred at least once in the past.
  • Proposition 2.1 is thus seen to be a false proposition.
  • Because we observe existence, we must conclude in this scenario that existence has been caused by a prior existence of nothing, there being no alternative.


Thus, we have emerged with three possibilities in regard to the cause of existence:
1.   Existence is caused by nothing.
2.   Existence is caused by the existence of nothing.
3.   Existence is caused by the threat of the existence of nothing.
In all scenarios we have a complete and sufficient explanation for existence.