I got a dang funny phone call today about 3:pm. The phone rang and it said "Private Caller" with no phone number. I never answer those. But for some reason I decided to, don't know why? I picked up the phone and this is how it went.
Me: "Hello"... Silence
Me: "Helloooo...."
Female Voice (timid): "Is this Mr. Walls?"
Me: "You got the wrong number"
(My TV was up loud and couldn't really hear that good so I flipped it to mute)
Me: "Did you ask is this Mr. Walls?"
Male voice in a semi angry tone: "Are there any Walls there"
Me: "Yes, I have lots of walls but no one here by that name." (His Voiced Cracked)
Me: "This is a crank call right? Call me up and ask if there are any walls in my house." ( I started laughing and hung up the phone)
Needles to say they never called back. I figure with private caller ID and two people on the same line they were looking for someone. I got a good laugh out of it, I have no idea what they thought. I am not bullshiting here folks, it actually happened. I guess amateurs shouldn't try to play private detective.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Judge Jeanine Pirro
Never heard of this lady. Wow, If Savage could just shut up and let her talk. Evidently she is a Fox News anchor. I'm impressed. I quit watching Fox years ago. The thing I most hate about talk show hosts is they can't shut up for more than 20 seconds, then change the damn subject just as the guest is winding up their thoughts. I wish just once a guest would say, look, it's your show but if you can't let me complete a thought this is a waste of my time. Alex Jones is the worst about it. I did see Paul Craig Roberts call down Alex one day when he was either interrupting or trying to complete his thought for him. I sent him an email and told him he had diarrhea of the mouth and was extremely rude to a man of PCR's stature. But any way listen to this lady when Savage shuts his mouth.
Shocking medical notice
This lady took her daughter to the doctor recently and wrote this warning about new policies. One day I'll do a post on the horror stories I have encountered in the treatment of cancer. After Obamacare became law this year it is getting worse. But for now, read this. .
Let’s get one thing straight: no doctor or nurse is going to sequester my children in an exam room and talk to them privately. Period. This public service announcement made necessary because of this sign, posted at the check-in counter of my doctor’s office.
I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.
That did not go over well
The receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, “Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?”
She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.
I kindly informed her that no one would be talking with my children privately, and I needed to know how to opt out of this policy before bringing Amy back for her physical next month. (Yay for physicals! Amy is so excited.)
By this time, the doctor was ready to see Amy so I had to cut the conversation short because I was not letting my girl out of my eyesight or earshot. Not when it was clear that these people were angling to undermine my parental authority.
Does that sound a bit dramatic to you? It shouldn’t. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do.
Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?
Should a doctor ever ask to speak to a child without a parent present? If he/she suspects abuse then of course. But short of evidence of abuse, a doctor should not need to speak to a child alone.
I am the Mom. I will pick who can talk to my kids about sex and drugs. And rock-n-roll for that matter.
Regardless what health care provider you choose, please know that no one has the right to remove you from your child’s exam room. Perhaps if more of us stood up for our rights as parents, this ludicrous undermining of parental authority might end.
Let’s get one thing straight: no doctor or nurse is going to sequester my children in an exam room and talk to them privately. Period. This public service announcement made necessary because of this sign, posted at the check-in counter of my doctor’s office.
I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.
That did not go over well
The receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, “Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?”
She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.
I kindly informed her that no one would be talking with my children privately, and I needed to know how to opt out of this policy before bringing Amy back for her physical next month. (Yay for physicals! Amy is so excited.)
By this time, the doctor was ready to see Amy so I had to cut the conversation short because I was not letting my girl out of my eyesight or earshot. Not when it was clear that these people were angling to undermine my parental authority.
Does that sound a bit dramatic to you? It shouldn’t. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do.
Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?
Should a doctor ever ask to speak to a child without a parent present? If he/she suspects abuse then of course. But short of evidence of abuse, a doctor should not need to speak to a child alone.
I am the Mom. I will pick who can talk to my kids about sex and drugs. And rock-n-roll for that matter.
Regardless what health care provider you choose, please know that no one has the right to remove you from your child’s exam room. Perhaps if more of us stood up for our rights as parents, this ludicrous undermining of parental authority might end.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The Infinite Universe
This is old. I found it on an old USB Thumb Drive while looking for something else. I am sure was state of the art at the time. It can hold a whole 125 MB of information. That's funny to even think about. It is old enough I don't remember writing it. It is also incomplete, unfinished.
Update: There is a reason I don't remember writing this, because I didn't. Dr. Hugh Ross did. Sorry about that, but I remember studying it in depth probably saved it and when I saw it on an old USB drive thought I wrote it. Doesn't change its truth. Actually gives it more kick of authority. I'm kind of embarrassed at myself, I'm just glad I caught this myself..
Steam engine 12%
Human body 1%
Universe 0.00000001%
During the collapse phase toward a hypothetical bounce at least one region or volume (technically called a “domain”) in the universe would utterly resist being crushed to the tiny volume necessary for the exotic effects of quantum gravity to take over.
Update: There is a reason I don't remember writing this, because I didn't. Dr. Hugh Ross did. Sorry about that, but I remember studying it in depth probably saved it and when I saw it on an old USB drive thought I wrote it. Doesn't change its truth. Actually gives it more kick of authority. I'm kind of embarrassed at myself, I'm just glad I caught this myself..
The
Infinitely Oscillation Universe Model
In the oscillating
universe model suggested by physicists like Robert Dicke and John
Gribbin, the universe alternates for infinite time between phases of
expansion and contraction. Gravity halts the expansion and generates
a succeeding phase of contraction. An unknown physical mechanism is
proposed to somehow bounce the universe from a period of contraction
into a period of expansion, and the characteristics of the
contraction and expansion phases
are presumed not to vary significantly with time.
According to Princeton
physicist Robert Dicke, an infinite number of these cycles of
expansion and contraction of the universe would “relieve us of the
necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in
the past.” The creation event becomes irrelevant, and our existence
could be attributed to one lucky bounce.
But the universe has
far less mechanical efficiency than a foam-rubber ball. In 1983 and
1984, American astrophysicists Marc Sher, Alan Guth, and Sidney
Bludman demonstrated that even if the universe contained enough mass
to halt its current expansion, any ultimate collapse would end in a
thud, not a bounce. In terms of mechanical energy, the universe more
closely resembles a wet lump of clay than a pumped up volleyball (see
table 1). Sher and Guth confidently entitled their paper “The
Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe.”
Table 1: Mechanical
Efficiencies of Some Common Systems
If the universe
oscillated, that means it is behaving like an engine or a system
designed to perform work. The ability of a system or engine to
perform work or to oscillate depends on its mechanical efficiency.
The universe literally ranks as the worst engine in all existence.
Its mechanical efficiency is so low that oscillation is impossible.
System or
Engine Mechanical Efficiency
Diesel engine 40%
Gasoline engine 25%Steam engine 12%
Human body 1%
Universe 0.00000001%
Arnold Sikkema and
Werner Israel grasped it, hypothesizing bizarre effects of merging
black holes in that split second when all the matter and energy of
the universe would still have been contained in a very tiny volume.
These men honestly admitted that no consistent theory of quantum
gravity yet exists. It must be noted, too, that the oscillation
theory they proposed yields at most only a sharply limited number of
bounces. It offers no escape from the notion of a beginning in the
not-so-distant past.
That slender straw
grasped by Sikkema and Israel was crushed recently by Russian
physicist Andre Linde. At a symposium on the large-scale structure of
the universe, Linde demonstrated that the universe, with the
characteristics we observe, cannot have arisen from a bounce in the
quantum gravity era. Why?
There are two
considerations:
During the collapse phase toward a hypothetical bounce at least one region or volume (technically called a “domain”) in the universe would utterly resist being crushed to the tiny volume necessary for the exotic effects of quantum gravity to take over.
- The bounce, if it could take place, would not produce sufficient matter.
The
Pope, the Big Bang, and God
It took Pope Pius XII ,
in his 1951 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, to turn
that question into an international debate. The Pope spoke of how
“true science discovers God in an ever-increasing degree.” The
Big Bang suggested that “the material universe had in finite time a
mighty beginning.” It showed how matter was dependent on a
Necessary Being. In other word, matter had mutability and nature a
teleological order. He acknowledged that there can be no absolute
proof from science regarding God, and cautioned against tying faith
to transient theories. Nevertheless, the evidence was looking pretty
good: a religious concept of creation was “entirely compatible”
with the Big Bang. Science had “confirmed the contingency of the
universe…..Hence, creation took place in time. Therefore, there is
a Creator. Therefore God exists!”
Although it quickly
entered popular culture and became a household term, the Big Bang
theory still had only provisional acceptance in scientific circles
until the 1990s. To evaluate the precise fluctuations, or “wrinkles”
in the background radiation reported in 1965, NASA sent aloft the
Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1989. The findings,
announced three years later, were an astounding endorsement of the
Big Bang, explaining why its apparently smooth beginning ended up in
a universe full of clumpy galaxies. The proof came none too soon,
said a relieved COBE mission leader George Smoot: “Very simply, the
discovery of the wrinkles salvaged Big Bang theory at a time when
detractors were attacking it in increasing numbers.”
When the Cambridge
astrophysicist Stephen Hawking arrived at the Vatican in 1981 to
address a session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he did not
question the Big Bang, but he may have felt he was taking on the
legacy of Pope Pius. Hawking unveiled his “no-boundary theory,:
which used quantum physics and “imaginary time” to say there was
no beginning to the universe. So long as the universe had a
beginning, we could suppose it had a creator,” Hawking has said
elsewhere. “But if the universe is really completely
self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither
beginning nor end. What place then for a creator?”
Astronomer
George Coyne, a Jesuit and director of the Vatican Observatory, said
Hawking embarked on his foray into theology with too little
philosophical training in the matter. He was mixing up the “nothings”
as used by physics and by theology. “He speaks of a quantum
nothing, but that is not nothing,” Coyne said, playing on words.
“It has nothing to do with the nothing of Scripture-that God
created the universe from nothing.” In sum, “the God he excludes
is not the God we believe in.”
Time
and the Beginning
Even before the death
of the oscillating universe model, a fundamental reason was uncovered
for the failure of cosmological models that rejected the finite age
of the universe. In a series of papers appearing from 1966 to 1970,
three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and
Roger Penrose, extended the solution of the equations of general
relativity to include space and time. The result was called the
space-time theorem of general relativity. This theorem demonstrated
that if general relativity is valid for the universe then, under very
general conditions, space and time must have originated in the same
cosmic bang that brought matter and energy into existence.
In Hawking’s words,
time itself must have a beginning. Proof of the beginning of time may
rank as the most theologically significant theorem of all time,
assuming validity of the theory of general relativity.
This space-time theorem
tells us that the dimensions of length, width, height, and time have
existed only for as long as the universe has been expanding, less
than about twenty billion years. Time really does have a beginning.
By definition, time is
that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. No
time, no cause and effect. If time’s beginning is concurrent with
the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then
the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time
dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to
our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells
us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional
limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe
itself, nor is God contained within the universe. Pantheism and
atheism do not square with the facts.
Pantheism claims there
is no existence beyond the universe, that the universe is all there
is, and that the universe always has existed. Atheism claims that the
universe was not created and no entity exists independent of the
matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe. But all
the data accumulated in the twentieth century tells us that a
transcendent Creator must exist, for all the matter, energy, length,
width, height, and even time suddenly and simultaneously came into
being from some source beyond itself.
It is valid to refer to
such a source, entity, or being as the Creator, for creating is
defined as causing something-in this case everything in the
universe-to come into existence. Matter, energy, space, and time are
the effects He caused. Likewise, it is valid to refer to the Creator
as transcendent, for the act of causing these effects must take place
outside or independent of them.
Not only does science
lead us to these conclusions, but so also does the Bible, and it is
the only holy book to do so.
~ Hugh Ross, PhD
~ Hugh Ross, PhD
Monday, June 2, 2014
Measuring a Group
This is a 100 yd group shot by Luke with some of his practice ammo. But this provides a good platform to show how to measure a group.
If you can't see it good click to enlarge. The red circles are .308" and the lines measure center to center. You take the furthest two in the spread and that is your group. In this case would be a 0.92" group. This was loaded in to CAD and scaled by the inch squares, so it is on the money. It is not to scale in the image, but in the CAD Program.
Luke, a little over a 1/2" group - 0.58"
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Dave Hodges - The common sense show purged
Update: Hodges is back, you can read about being threatened on his web page.
Dave Hodges - UNDER SEVERE PERSONAL ATTACK HIS SITE MAY BE DOWN FOR WEEKS .
One theory
One thing Hodges has recently wrote about is a potential nuclear false flag in Chicago. That is why Obama sold his house there, and why Rahm Emmanuel decided to become mayor of Chicago. Hodges has written about this potential false flag in Chicago for a couple of years. Supposedly, Hodges had a source with this info, and this source ended up dead.
Now, I am not saying that there is a 100% chance of this false flag to occur. But I do find this information, along with Quayle's alert, as something to keep an eye on.
Pray for Dave Hodges and his family.
Dave Hodges - UNDER SEVERE PERSONAL ATTACK HIS SITE MAY BE DOWN FOR WEEKS .
DAVE HAS RECVD 'REALLY SPECIFIC DEATH THREATS AND HIS SITE MAY BE DOWN FOR WEEKS AND IS FACING HUGE ATTACKS IN ALL AREAS OF HIS LIFE-THANK YOU FOR PRAYING OVER THIS COURAGEOUS BROTHER AND THANKING GOD FOR HIS DIVINE INTERVENTION IN DAVES LIFE TODAY-ASK YOURSELF THIS --WHAT ARE THE TOPICS THAT HE HAS BEEN WRITING ABOUT THAT AFFECT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHO IS BEHIND THESE ATTACKS!
May 31, 2014
He was one of my go to guys in my daily reading. This is all I can find about it. Here is his face book page that is still up for now. His website had news articles and archives of his Sunday radio programs now all gone. It was his website, not through blogger or any other sites with terms of agreement but a purchased site http://thecommonsenseshow.com/ licensed to him. He called a spade a spade and named names. I wish I could find out more about what is really going on.
If anyone has any further info I would appreciate it. Dave is really sharp with a mild manner Christian. His page with all his articles does not exist anymore - gone unlike what is in the video posted below.
 | The webpage cannot be found |
Most likely causes:
|
One theory
One thing Hodges has recently wrote about is a potential nuclear false flag in Chicago. That is why Obama sold his house there, and why Rahm Emmanuel decided to become mayor of Chicago. Hodges has written about this potential false flag in Chicago for a couple of years. Supposedly, Hodges had a source with this info, and this source ended up dead.
Now, I am not saying that there is a 100% chance of this false flag to occur. But I do find this information, along with Quayle's alert, as something to keep an eye on.
Pray for Dave Hodges and his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)