Here is some additional press coverage.

Fortunately, the folks demonstrating against Secretary Betsy DeVos behaved themselves.  Noisy, but not violent.

So why was I there?  I don’t think politicians should be running schools.  The public school system is a socialist system. A socialist system ends up serving the people who run the system, not the people that that system is supposed to benefit. Therefore, I am hoping Secretary DeVos will have some success as she advocates school choice.

Consider the problem of just getting a decent science education. Because of theories like Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution, politicians have politicized science. So we have this curiosity.

Yes, we do have scientists who have looked at some data asserting that theories like Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution have to be true because they explain the data, but the SCIENTIFIC method does not work that way. The scientific method does not permit us to equate an unproven hypothesis with a demonstrated theory.

scientific method  noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Think about what it means to empirically test a hypothesis. If we have a theory of how a system works, then we have a model of the relationship between the causes and the effects that operate within that system. How do we test our model? We use our model to make a prediction. If we change this cause, we say, then this effect will result. Then we do the experiment and observe the results.

Unfortunately, with respect to Global Warming and the Theory of Evolution, we are incapable of such rigor.  We cannot experiment with the weather, and perhaps that is a good thing. Otherwise, we would have an awfully frightful weapon of war. Similarly our ability to conduct experiments in evolution are limited. We don’t live long enough.

The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Does this mean all scientists follow exactly this process? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others. For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star’s life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! But even when modified, the goal remains the same: to discover cause and effect relationships by asking questions, carefully gathering and examining the evidence, and seeing if all the available information can be combined in to a logical answer. (from here)

Think that definition from sciencebuddies.org is too off the wall? Then check out

Then consider this observation.

How can we prove that our new hypothesis is true? We never can. The scientific method does not allow any hypothesis to be proven. Hypotheses can be disproven in which case that hypothesis is rejected as false. All we can say about a hypothesis, which stands up to, a test to falsify it is that we failed to disprove it. There is a world of difference between failing to disprove and proving. Make sure you understand this distinction; it is the foundation of the scientific method.

So what would we do with our hypothesis above? We currently accept it as true. To be rigorous, we need to subject the hypothesis to more tests that could show it is wrong. For instance, we could repeat the experiment but switch the control and experimental group. If the hypothesis keeps standing up to our efforts to knock it down, we can feel more confident about accepting it as true. However, we will never be able to state that the hypothesis is true. Rather, we accept it as true because the hypothesis stood up to several experiments to show it is false. (from here)

Other Views



A BGM-109 Tomahawk flying in November 2002 (from here)

When is the president required to get a Declaration of War? Because getting Congress to pass a Declaration of War is an arduous process, our troops often find themselves killing people and breaking their things without explicit congressional authorization. Official Declarations of War by Congress lists eleven declaration of war. Curiously, Congress never declared war on the Barbary Pirates (See First Barbary War, Second Barbary War. and Barbary Wars, 1801–1805 and 1815–1816.). Apparently, Congress decided early on to reserve formal declaration of wars for the more serious conflicts.

Therefore, when I heard President Trump had ordered airstrikes (cruise missile attacks) against Syria, I expected that he would exercise the good sense to consult the senior leaders in Congress, but I did not expect him to have a Declaration of War. As I expected, Trump had just consulted the senior leaders in Congress. Still, we are getting the usual arguments over a Declaration of War.

What I think is key here is that our president realizes that he needs congressional support. Trump needs to do his best to fulfill the spirit of the law. Without the support of the country, it is stupid to go to war. When our military forces start firing weapons in anger, we can never be quite sure things will go the way we expect.

Anyway, there is the usual raging debate. It is curious to see where people come down on this.

As a Conservative, I would like to see a process that clearly commits Congress before the president orders a strike. However, that would sacrifice the element of surprise. So it is not always practical. Nevertheless, given that Russia is backing Syria any conflict with Syria could quickly escalate. So Trump needs to define the mission and get Congress to support it if it involves the use of military force.


Live blog: GOP health care bill pulled as Republican leaders fail to get votes

Are you a Conservative? Then do the math! How many Republicans do we have in the Senate? The number is 52. How many votes are required to end a filibuster?  The number is 60. No matter how badly Republicans want to repeal Obamacare we are short 8 votes (and it ain’t all that badly).

So what did Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump put together? Check out INFORMATION WE NEED FOR THE DEBATE ON REPEALING AND REPLACING OBAMACARE. Listen to Ryan.  https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?425131-1/speaker-ryan-explains-gop-health-care-plan-amid-growing-opposition&popoutPlayer.

The bill the House should have passed, the American Health Care Act, was just phase 1 of a 3-phase plan.  Most of the actual work was in phases 2 and 3.  Do you know what those phases are? If you don’t, then you don’t understand why phase 1, the American Health Care Act, looks like Obamacare lite.  Since we don’t have the votes to repeal Obamacare, all the Senate can do is use the Budget Reconciliation process to pull its teeth. In phase 2, the executive branch — Trump’s people for now — uses executive orders to dismantle the Obamacare regulatory structure. Could a Democrat administration put it back in place? Yes, but we do what is possible in the here and now. The future we cannot control. In phase 3, Congress will try to pass legislation to wholly repeal and replace Obamacare. Phase 3 requires sixty votes in the Senate. We have to fight for those votes. Maybe we will have them AFTER the 2016 elections, but not likely.  It is going to take time to wean Americans off of the teats of big government.

We need to FOCUS ON WINNING THE WAR, not falling collectively on our swords, pridefully self-destructing just to make some silly point. If Conservatives want to take back the country, then we need to get the government out of the education business. If we don’t want so many voters indoctrinated in the supposed virtues of Socialism, then we need to stop corrupt politicians from indoctrinating them.

Meanwhile, the best thing we can do about Obamacare is to allow the Trump administration to start phase 2, using the regulatory powers that Obamacare gives the executive branch to undo what the Obama administration did. That requires the passage of the American Health Care Act.

So what should the House do now? It is a waste of time, but the House could pass a bill that repeals Obamacare.  Then House members can watch the Democrats filibuster the stupid thing in the Senate. Then the holier than thou can blame those Democrats when Obamacare self-destructs. Or those politicians who actually want our government to work can try to head off the failure of Obamacare. They can try to prevent the harm the failure of Obamacare will entail and pass the American Health Care Act.


vote for americaWhat is the problem of proving voter fraud? We have to have people running our voting systems who are willing to look for it.

Consider the irony. What’s the big news? Democrats, without any evidence, claim Russia fixed the presidential election.  Yet Democrats are unwilling to: ensure that only citizens can register to vote, clean up the voter registration rolls, or require proof of identity when people vote. No one except the Russians are trying to cheat in our elections?

What are Democrats doing to our voter registration and vote tallying systems? They are working to eliminate any effort to verify people vote honestly. Instead the are diligently working to make it as easy and as convenient as possible to register and to vote.  How do we know someone is who they say they are when they register to vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest? Are you who you say you are when you vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest?

If we don’t even look for cheating, we will not find it. It is cinch the cheaters will not inform on themselves.

Is there evidence of fraud? Yes, but you won’t find much of it in the Modern Liberal news media. So you have to dig deeply for the evidence, but your can find examples.

Really, most of the evidence is in our local news. That’s why Delegate Rob Bell sent out this email in November 2016.

Dear Citizen,

Still don’t believe in voter fraud?

In Alexandria, a campaign worker for a Democratic-aligned group was arrested and charged for registering fictitious voters.

In Newport News, a man received a voter registration at his address, but with a different name.  He brought it to prosecutors, who identified 32 others cases where this may have happened.

In Harrisonburg, a canvasser working for a group organized by a local Democrat was caught after attempting to register 19 dead Virginians.

Honest elections should be a priority for everyone.  But Mark Herring is still refusing to defend Virginia’s photo ID law in court. And Terry McAuliffe vetoed photo ID requirements for absentee ballots and a second bill to help keep non-citizens off Virginia’s voter rolls.  Democratic leaders are fighting our commonsense efforts to stop voter fraud in the first place.

After the last few weeks, not even Democrats can credibly argue that voter fraud doesn’t exist.

If you have evidence of voter fraud, be sure to report it to authorities. And as we try to move forward, we need your help. If you haven’t already, join the fight — sign the online petition by clicking here.


Delegate Rob Bell
Republican Candidate for Attorney General

What will you find easily find online when you google voter fraud evidence. To prevent a proper investigation, the largely Liberal News media is ridiculing reports of voter fraud.  This behavior looks much like the Wizard in the “Wizard of Oz” telling Dorothy not to look behind the curtain. The only proper description for it is suspiciously weird. Why wouldn’t the news media love to see such an investigation? If nothing is found, then the president they hate looks bad. If something is found, it makes for fascinating news. They cannot lose — unless they care more about getting Democrats elected than what is good for the country.