"Parenting"
As a parent of three, and now with three adult children, I can attest that no matter how much we try, parents are gonna make mistakes.
Sometimes we don't pay sufficient attention. Sometimes we unrealistically expect our children to behave like adults.
Sometimes we are too quick to discipline, and sometimes we discipline too harshly.
I remind my two younger sons that they need to thank God every day that Nellie came first, because she made me a better parent.
Sometimes when I was short on patience I did not always perform as well as I would have wished.
But one of the cool things about Nellie is that she is amazingly quick to forgive and forget. In other words, my mistakes are quickly expunged. I get to learn my lessons with minimal consequences for my sweet daughter.
I get do-overs.
As a parent of three, and now with three adult children, I can attest that no matter how much we try, parents are gonna make mistakes.
Sometimes we don't pay sufficient attention. Sometimes we unrealistically expect our children to behave like adults.
Sometimes we are too quick to discipline, and sometimes we discipline too harshly.
I remind my two younger sons that they need to thank God every day that Nellie came first, because she made me a better parent.
Sometimes when I was short on patience I did not always perform as well as I would have wished.
But one of the cool things about Nellie is that she is amazingly quick to forgive and forget. In other words, my mistakes are quickly expunged. I get to learn my lessons with minimal consequences for my sweet daughter.
I get do-overs.
❤185👍14🥰11
"Insanity"
I understand how it can happen, but it is widespread and infuriating.
I visit a county that is composed primarily of hugely conservative folks.
But they've hired a flaming liberal person to officiate and manage their elections.
Folks, you need to make better choices. It's too important.
And this is not limited to elections... we make the same stupid choices with our public schools.
It's no wonder our elections are a wreck and our children don't know the difference between an innie and an outie.
I understand how it can happen, but it is widespread and infuriating.
I visit a county that is composed primarily of hugely conservative folks.
But they've hired a flaming liberal person to officiate and manage their elections.
Folks, you need to make better choices. It's too important.
And this is not limited to elections... we make the same stupid choices with our public schools.
It's no wonder our elections are a wreck and our children don't know the difference between an innie and an outie.
🔥123👍47🙏8👏1
"How did you form your opinion?"
As I've been traveling the country, I've noticed a pattern:
The grassroots folks in a particular state have a very different impression of their own political leaders than do folks in the rest of the country.
For example, I had a positive impression of South Dakota's governor until the grassroots folks there educated me. Same situation in Florida and in other states.
Which begs the question, "Where are you obtaining your information, and how are you forming your opinion?"
If you are getting your info on FOX, 'nuff said.
If you are getting your info on the lame-stream media, 'nuff said.
If you are getting your info on social media, 'nuff said.
I sometimes have inside information and/or get to meet these leaders face-to-face. And sadly, what I learn is not good.
I encourage everyone to open their eyes.
Our country is in a bad place, and we don't have a single state government that is functioning on behalf of the people.
It's time to clean house, and time to drain the swamp.
Don't vote for anyone you haven't vetted yourself, using reliable sources of information.
As I've been traveling the country, I've noticed a pattern:
The grassroots folks in a particular state have a very different impression of their own political leaders than do folks in the rest of the country.
For example, I had a positive impression of South Dakota's governor until the grassroots folks there educated me. Same situation in Florida and in other states.
Which begs the question, "Where are you obtaining your information, and how are you forming your opinion?"
If you are getting your info on FOX, 'nuff said.
If you are getting your info on the lame-stream media, 'nuff said.
If you are getting your info on social media, 'nuff said.
I sometimes have inside information and/or get to meet these leaders face-to-face. And sadly, what I learn is not good.
I encourage everyone to open their eyes.
Our country is in a bad place, and we don't have a single state government that is functioning on behalf of the people.
It's time to clean house, and time to drain the swamp.
Don't vote for anyone you haven't vetted yourself, using reliable sources of information.
👍123🔥40❤9🙏4👏3
Florida Election Integrity Conference 2.0
Dr Frank's presentation starts at the 3:25:26 marker...
(If you have interest in Captain Keshel's presentation, it is before Dr. Frank.)
https://accfei.org/events/florida-02/
Dr Frank's presentation starts at the 3:25:26 marker...
(If you have interest in Captain Keshel's presentation, it is before Dr. Frank.)
https://accfei.org/events/florida-02/
👍61❤11🙏5
“Placer County”
There’s a rumor out there that I’ve backed away from my claims regarding voter manipulation in Placer County, California.
Bull pucky.
I’m certainly not perfect, but when I make mistakes I come right out and tell you.
One of the best parts of the scientific method is that one is not vested in any particular outcome. Instead, a real scientist is always tearing into their own analyses, trying to prove themselves wrong. It’s actually a point of scientific credibility to reveal one’s own mistakes.
I’ve been busy, or I would have already finished my a straightforward rebuttal to someone’s recent “challenge” of my Placer analysis. The nice thing about what I do is that anyone *with skill* can reproduce my work.
Ironically, this guy’s supposed rebuttal actually confirms my conclusions, and he doesn’t even realize it.
There’s a rumor out there that I’ve backed away from my claims regarding voter manipulation in Placer County, California.
Bull pucky.
I’m certainly not perfect, but when I make mistakes I come right out and tell you.
One of the best parts of the scientific method is that one is not vested in any particular outcome. Instead, a real scientist is always tearing into their own analyses, trying to prove themselves wrong. It’s actually a point of scientific credibility to reveal one’s own mistakes.
I’ve been busy, or I would have already finished my a straightforward rebuttal to someone’s recent “challenge” of my Placer analysis. The nice thing about what I do is that anyone *with skill* can reproduce my work.
Ironically, this guy’s supposed rebuttal actually confirms my conclusions, and he doesn’t even realize it.
🔥109👍23
“Global Warming?”
Above is an updated graph of the ENTIRE satellite record of global average atmospheric temperatures. I’ve been carefully tracking these measurements and discussion since the early 1980’s. (Scientists began these measurements in 1979 because of the myriad issues with land-based measurements. Credit: DrRoySpencer.com)
In short, the graph illustrates that the average temperature of the lower atmosphere is steadily increasing at a rate of about 1.3 C per 100 years, essentially unchanged for hundreds of years (since the ‘Little Ice Age.’)
Why is this result important? Because this is the precise portion of the atmosphere that was supposed to be dramatically affected by anthropogenic global warming. Clearly, no such effect is observed.
The scientific method requires experimentation; one makes a hypothesis as to the outcome, then does an experiment to test it. If the experiment comes out the way one predicts, then the hypothesis is confirmed and it is more likely that one knows what is going on. If a different outcome results, then the hypothesis is flawed, and the scientist needs to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and faulty understanding.
Since the temperature trend in the precise portion of the atmosphere that was supposed to be dramatically warming due to human-caused activity remains unchanged, the underlying assumptions of climate change alarmists are suspect, and need revision.
But it is difficult for scientists to revise their paradigms when their government funding relies upon propagation of their faulty explanations.
Science and politics do not play well together.
Above is an updated graph of the ENTIRE satellite record of global average atmospheric temperatures. I’ve been carefully tracking these measurements and discussion since the early 1980’s. (Scientists began these measurements in 1979 because of the myriad issues with land-based measurements. Credit: DrRoySpencer.com)
In short, the graph illustrates that the average temperature of the lower atmosphere is steadily increasing at a rate of about 1.3 C per 100 years, essentially unchanged for hundreds of years (since the ‘Little Ice Age.’)
Why is this result important? Because this is the precise portion of the atmosphere that was supposed to be dramatically affected by anthropogenic global warming. Clearly, no such effect is observed.
The scientific method requires experimentation; one makes a hypothesis as to the outcome, then does an experiment to test it. If the experiment comes out the way one predicts, then the hypothesis is confirmed and it is more likely that one knows what is going on. If a different outcome results, then the hypothesis is flawed, and the scientist needs to re-examine the fundamental assumptions and faulty understanding.
Since the temperature trend in the precise portion of the atmosphere that was supposed to be dramatically warming due to human-caused activity remains unchanged, the underlying assumptions of climate change alarmists are suspect, and need revision.
But it is difficult for scientists to revise their paradigms when their government funding relies upon propagation of their faulty explanations.
Science and politics do not play well together.
🔥80👍30👏21🙏1
“Evidence of Harm”
I present two graphs from the CDC’s “excess deaths” website.
The first one (mostly blue) shows the total number of deaths per week in the US from all causes. Clearly apparent is the initial Covid infection spike in early 2020, followed by two large double-waves beginning in mid 2020 and mid 2021, followed by the first part of a much smaller double wave in 2022.
(A “+” above a particular blue bar indicates that the number of deaths exceeds what the CDC considers to be normal for that week.)
Since viruses mutate into weaker forms, we can expect the second part of the current double-wave to be similarly attenuated; Covid is mutating itself out of relevancy.
The second graph displays the same weekly data, but this time separated into Covid and non-Covid deaths as delineated by the CDC. Here we see something alarming: the number of NON-Covid deaths from April of 2021 to January 2022 is also in excess.
This might be the clearest evidence that I’ve seen to date that there are excess deaths due to the Covid “vaccines,” since this is the precise time interval in which widespread inoculations were taking place.
If someone has a better explanation why people are dying in excess from non-Covid causes, I‘m anxious to hear it. (Perhaps they are misattributed to a non-Covid cause.)
My working hypothesis has been that since Covid resulted in the early deaths of our most vulnerable folks, I’ve been expecting the total number of deaths from all causes to fall below historical norms at some point.
But instead, non-Covid deaths continue to persist at an elevated rate.
These data appear to support the claim that the Covid jab is resulting in significant elevated deaths.
I present two graphs from the CDC’s “excess deaths” website.
The first one (mostly blue) shows the total number of deaths per week in the US from all causes. Clearly apparent is the initial Covid infection spike in early 2020, followed by two large double-waves beginning in mid 2020 and mid 2021, followed by the first part of a much smaller double wave in 2022.
(A “+” above a particular blue bar indicates that the number of deaths exceeds what the CDC considers to be normal for that week.)
Since viruses mutate into weaker forms, we can expect the second part of the current double-wave to be similarly attenuated; Covid is mutating itself out of relevancy.
The second graph displays the same weekly data, but this time separated into Covid and non-Covid deaths as delineated by the CDC. Here we see something alarming: the number of NON-Covid deaths from April of 2021 to January 2022 is also in excess.
This might be the clearest evidence that I’ve seen to date that there are excess deaths due to the Covid “vaccines,” since this is the precise time interval in which widespread inoculations were taking place.
If someone has a better explanation why people are dying in excess from non-Covid causes, I‘m anxious to hear it. (Perhaps they are misattributed to a non-Covid cause.)
My working hypothesis has been that since Covid resulted in the early deaths of our most vulnerable folks, I’ve been expecting the total number of deaths from all causes to fall below historical norms at some point.
But instead, non-Covid deaths continue to persist at an elevated rate.
These data appear to support the claim that the Covid jab is resulting in significant elevated deaths.
🔥81👍36😢17🤔1🙏1
"Facebook Jail"
I was beginning worry... perhaps I haven't been speaking enough truth lately, because I haven't been in Facebook jail for quite some time.
Phew!
This morning I found myself in jail again.
It's reaffirming.
I was beginning worry... perhaps I haven't been speaking enough truth lately, because I haven't been in Facebook jail for quite some time.
Phew!
This morning I found myself in jail again.
It's reaffirming.
👏98😁51🎉13🤣11🤬5🤔1😢1🙏1