tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44216753686376189442024-03-08T22:46:54.509-08:00The RSS News Home PageA home page where you can read rss news feeds without distraction.Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.comBlogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-35192414147945891162024-03-08T22:45:00.000-08:002024-03-08T22:45:56.859-08:00The Problem with Sgt Karl Wolfe's Alien TestimonyThere has been a big push for aliens lately. It makes sense. You have something that will never materialize, but at the same time most people are afraid of it. Very few people are scientifically versed enough to know that aliens cannot exist, and it is extremely easy to fake things well enough for people to buy into them. <div><br /></div><div>So, my husband was telling me about one of the latest fabrications in this area and in my looking it up, I came across this https://archive.org/details/youtube-_4hycqDNnPE</div><div><br /></div><div>This guy comes off as if he were telling the honest truth, but there are some major issues with his own testimony. (1) His dates are a little loose. He says he served from '64-68. Okay. But then he talks about a plane that "nobody knew about." However, two had already been shot down by other governments in the early 60s. </div><div><br /></div><div>(2) He alludes to an intelligence school that was on the base--but his job was to fix machines. At no point, does he say his job was to interpret signals or photographs. This is important--fixing machines only requires a "secret" security clearance. Further, a person doing intelligence work would not also have to fix the machines nor would s/he get training in fixing anything. </div><div><br /></div><div>(3) There is no such thing as a "crypto" security clearance. This is garbage. </div><div><br /></div><div>(4) I find it extremely hard to believe that the machine breaks down, and they have one soldier working on it and go get a newer soldier who hasn't yet gotten security clearance to be in the building where the machine is to work on it. </div><div><br /></div><div>(5) They moved the machine out of the building to troubleshoot it. So, instead of moving it out of the building to begin with, they gave a guy an immediate higher security clearance to go in an off-limits area to look at the machine, and the first thing he tells them is he needs to take it out of there to troubleshoot. They then leave the guy in the room alone with only one other guy--with no reason to do so since he could not work on it in there at all. Might happen--but in a part of the base that was supposed to contain compartmentalized information you needed the highest security clearance to be in, very doubtful. </div><div><br /></div><div>(6) He talks about being in a "darkroom." The Lunar lander developed the film itself, and then scanned the images and sent them back to earth. Since the Lunar lander was crashed into the moon, there is no way the film inside it would have found its way back to earth if film needed to be developed. Still he talks in detail about developing 35 mm film and a "darkroom." the only film there would have been was magnetic film--no darkroom required. That said, it would have been easy for him to look up the process he describes and think that is how it worked. </div><div><br /></div><div>(7) Mr. Wolfe repeatedly talks about "compartmentalized" information. He was a repair tech and had no reason to know the details of how the images were getting there. The guy in the room with him presumably has an equal or higher security clearance but has no problem blabbing about everything--from details about the method of transmission (that are incorrect) to photos of the "alien base." People who have this high of a security clearance do not talk or they lose their jobs ASAP and end up in prison. He then acts like it was okay for the guy to be talking about all the other stuff but once he talked about the base that was bad. Yet, Mr. Wolfe still asked the guy "whose base"? He uses the excuse that the guy "needed to discuss it." If the guy did show him something, it was probably as a joke.</div><div><br /></div><div>(8) They used 70mm not 35mm film (like Mr. Wolfe says) on these images. 35 mm wouldn't have gotten the needed detail. </div><div><br /></div><div>(9) He says that he knew the information was top secret--but thought it would be on the news some time soon. </div><div><br /></div><div>(10) Despite the top secret compartmentalized nature of the entire project and the fact he only seems to have worked on one machine for it once, he has pictures they gave him from it. He then has conveniently sold these pictures, and that he can't show the only evidence he had that he actually worked with this project. </div><div><br /></div><div>(11) NASA has released many photos from this project. They are amazing, but their resolution is about 3/10 of a kilometer-- not the often cited "you could read the license plate off a car." That is a crock of bologna. He he then tries to downplay the claim he made saying that even though he had seen these pictures of the base, but he doesn't know how good their resolution was. Did he see license plates on the base?</div><div><br /></div><div>(12) First he tells us he got the higher security clearance when he walked into the building--then he tells us he didn't have a cryptological clearance until later. Again, why does he need a cryptology clearance when he fixes equipment? He isn't decoding any secret messages. He also repeatedly tells us his job was an electric system <b>technician</b>. Does he need a low-level security clearance, yes. But he certainly doesn't need top secret or anything else. "I got to go into every room in the facility...[and do] maintenance." </div><div><br /></div><div>(13) He talks about changing your security badge at the door for a higher level one? This makes no sense--especially in light of his statement that it took years to get security clearances. The changing badges at the doors sounds like he move up every time something broke. Now, I would except they gave him a temporary badge that warned everyone he did not have a high enough clearance to be there and was probably given a "keeper" to make sure he didn't wander off, but bragging that he was getting higher level clearances every time he went through a door is silly. </div><div><br /></div><div>(14) He sounds like he was a real risk, and they knew it. And, please, he was a tech. The guy with the gun was probably guarding him FROM the Vietcong. </div><div><br /></div><div>(15) Your security clearance expiring does not mean you can now share whatever you were told not to share.</div><div><br /></div><div>(16) His descriptions of "buildings" sound like the natural features of the moon potentially doctored. Mr. Wolfe admits he only glanced at the supposed photo decades ago and came to this assumption after someone told him it was a "base." </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know if someone played a trick on this guy or if this guy is playing a deliberate trick on everyone, but his story doesn't stack up. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-45440081438886856072024-01-21T13:00:00.000-08:002024-01-21T13:00:35.971-08:00Why Isn't Hunter Biden Being Charged Under Same Law the Attorney General Is Charging Trump?<p> <span style="font-family: georgia;">So, before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Attorney General can charge people who participated in the January 6 protest with <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505" target="_blank">18 U.S. Code § 1505 </a>- Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. This code specifically relates to congressional investigations--or inquiries, such as the one where Congress is investigating Hunter Biden. Now, as most of is know, Congress was not performing an inquiry January 6, but certifying the 2020 election. So, whether this law applies to January 6 is up in the air (and it probably doesn't). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">However, the Hunter Biden investigation<b><u> is</u></b> an inquiry. The pertinent portion of the law says: "</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Open Sans", "Sohne Buch", Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 16px;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Open Sans", "Sohne Buch", Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 16px;">Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede...the due and proper exercise of the <b>power of inquiry</b> under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House...of the </span><span link="https://liicornell.org/liifedent/congress" occur="1" src="named_federal_agencies" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "Open Sans", "Sohne Buch", Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 16px;">Congress</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Open Sans", "Sohne Buch", Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 16px;">—"</span></blockquote><p>Well, Congress wants to privately interview Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is trying to influence them and has told them he will not show up <b>unless they have an open interview</b>. That right there is him trying to influence the inquiry. He doesn't want to do it the way Congress wants to do it, and <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4357781-hunter-biden-capitol-deposition-republicans/" target="_blank">he has follow through on his threats by not showing up and impeding the process</a>. I mean he didn't just send a letter--he went on the news and told Congress he wasn't coming unless they did it his way. Now, Congress didn't cave, but they don't have to. The act of attempting to influence them is enough as the law is written. Anyone want to explain why he isn't be prosecuted? </p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Open Sans", "Sohne Buch", Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 16px;"></span><p></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-21008489936331016572024-01-10T18:32:00.000-08:002024-01-10T18:32:09.063-08:00Robert Kennedy Jr. <p> I have never voted straight ticket (that I am aware of) since the time I was 18 and proudly cast my first vote. I also usually wait until a week or two before the November election to select my candidates. I review voting records and other public documents--even down to judges. For most candidates, that will still be my policy this year. However, I am whole heartedly throwing my support behind Robert Kennedy, Jr. (or "Bobby" or RFK Jr. if you prefer). </p><p>At the same time, I admit, his ideals and platforms do not 100% align with what I believe. So why am I voting for him? First, he is an independent. This means that whatever policy he develops during his campaign, he can change it once elected--and I believe he would change it to support what voters want. Yes, he says some crazy things, but have you heard our current president and former president talk?! The unique thing is that any Democrat or Republican candidate has to sign a loyalty contract with their respective party. They cannot support or veto anything the party doesn't approve of. An independent candidate like Mr. Kennedy can change based on voters--not party politics. </p><p>Finally, Kennedy is popular--his name is easy to spell in case he doesn't get on the ballot in some states. We need a change and the Republicans and Democrats have kept their monopoly long enough.</p><p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odYab21LZE8&ab_channel=ERICTROOP</p><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-62538148187136669802023-12-20T11:27:00.000-08:002023-12-20T11:27:12.229-08:00President Joe Biden--not former President Trump--Should Be Banned From the Ballot<p>I want to preface this article with the fact that I do not like former President Trump. I will be voting for Robert Kennedy, Jr. (as long as he stays the course) in the next election because I am an independent who cannot stand Republicans or Democrats. As far as I am concerned, in the U.S.A. our "two" parties are actually one party that only allows the second to exist so that it looks like we are a democracy. Our founding fathers would be disgusted. Ross Perot would have won the presidency if people would have simply voted for him instead of listening to lies that third party votes were "wasted." Things will continue to get worse as long as we refuse to elect independents.</p><p>Colorado is showing how stupid it is and how stupid Americans have become. In the beginning, the click bait news agencies labeled the January 6th protest as an "insurrection" and instead of arguing this title everyone went with it. They ignored the facts that Black Lives Matter protests were frequently more violent. The formation of CHAZ/CHOP inside Seattle, Washington, where "protesters" took over a portion of the city, declared themselves independent of the United States of America, and violently attacked police forces that attempted to enter--was a true insurrection and should be labeled as such. On January 6th, a few members of the public who happened to be protesting, broke down police lines, and entered the Capitol without ever raising any weapons against anyone. That was a true protest gone bad--<b><u>at worst</u></b>. That the then President Trump was nowhere near these protestors at the time, makes this even more of a farce. </p><p>So, we have now put all these people on trial--not for getting out of hand at a protest but instead for treason! Apparently, these democrats doing this have a short memory. They should also be put on trial for treason because of the events during the<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage" target="_blank"> Days of Rage</a> in Chicago, Illinois. Since people organized during that protest and began blowing up government buildings, that was, in fact, an insurrection. None of those people should be allowed anywhere near candidates--oh, but we forgave them and one of them actually mentored former President Barack Obama. There is no statute of limitations for treason. Why haven't they been put on trial for the crimes <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?286874-1/depth-bill-ayers" target="_blank">they openly brag about</a>? </p><p>The Colorado Supreme Court has also taken it upon itself to determine former President Trump is guilty of treason/insurrection without him ever being convicted of this in a Court of Law--his trial is still in the beginning stages. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Well, here in the United States when people with a lot of money decide they don't like the people choosing a president, anyone the people might democratically choose they remove. Within the Democrat and Republican parties, they throw primaries to make people think they are choosing a candidate, but then at the convention they use voters who do not have to represent the choice of the people so they can control things. </p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;">Looking at the facts of the insurrection law under which Colorado has condemned former President Trump is easy, Congress right after the Civil War, filled with only Republicans from the North--Southern states were not represented--sought to ban those who had participated in the Civil War!! The January 6th Protest--lasting less than 24 hours--was not anywhere near the Civil War, or the Days of Rage for that matter. </span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">Now, in the United States we do have a passive insurrection currently. One that has not taken up arms--yet. We have states, like Colorado, violating Federal laws by allowing marijuana to be sold and used by anyone. Delaware, one of the states that President Biden represented, also allows all its citizens to violate Federal law. President Joe Biden, who has sworn to support the laws of the United States for years as a representative to Congress of his state, has spoken out against Federal Law and stated openly that people should not be imprisoned for possessing marijuana. I am sure that has nothing to do with the fact his son is a drug addict, but regardless of his reasoning, he has encouraged this insurrection. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">Don't tell me marijuana has any medical benefit. Now that people who are not a part of the pro-</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;">marijuana</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;"> collective have been able to scientifically test these claims, marijuana has been found to relieve pain worse than a placebo. It has been found to increase (not decrease) anxiety. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">These states don't just allow it for medical use, and President Biden wasn't talking about arresting people who were using it as medicine. If it had any medicinal value it could be dropped down a schedule by Congress--and I am sure if there were any scientific, large scale experiments by unbiased experimenters showing its effectiveness it would be. There aren't. One thing scientists have shown is that people who smoke </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;">marijuana</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;"> are impaired enough that they shouldn't be driving for up to 5 days after use. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">If the passive resistance of January 6th was a true "insurrection" which only gets death rates higher than the one protester shot by a cop by including people with heart attacks and those who died months after the fact, if that is an insurrection, than so is the failure of states to follow Federal law. All those in government positions in those states, like Colorado and Delaware, should be banned from the ballots. All those that support those insurrectionists, such as President Biden, should also be banned. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white;">Our Founding Fathers Declared their Independence from England and then took arms against England...i.e. they committed a real insurrection. It is highly doubted they would have supported the insurrection clause at all. If we aren't going to repeal that clause, it is high time we use it equally across all the states. Put those involved in the Days of Rage on trial and ban all those from states whose governments have allowed violations of Federal law to go unpunished in their states. </span></span></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-80046337950587973732023-08-31T22:44:00.008-07:002023-08-31T22:52:14.996-07:00Please Double Check My Latin<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi6HlYn5HKAgeO-eQdnahr_r6465pzxYZD69vXiN3P9g95GPGyQQywVdDeozTVo20zu5jyAHlpwwamSgSwRBq4c18mKm2cUA2yNbGHsLhzNm6zY5fAHiMJuLNXjDUiuLpqnln53w4MdTgJDh5uiVJjKsuJC3DF7oM-kDVQImtpwZzffU0OTTPd6TozG6ev_" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="546" data-original-width="970" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi6HlYn5HKAgeO-eQdnahr_r6465pzxYZD69vXiN3P9g95GPGyQQywVdDeozTVo20zu5jyAHlpwwamSgSwRBq4c18mKm2cUA2yNbGHsLhzNm6zY5fAHiMJuLNXjDUiuLpqnln53w4MdTgJDh5uiVJjKsuJC3DF7oM-kDVQImtpwZzffU0OTTPd6TozG6ev_=w553-h311" width="553" /></a></div>So this is the new seal for the division of the Pentagon that will be investigating UFOs. Now, we, the people, invested in SETI for decades, listening to anything we could hear and trying to make it into intelligent life trying to contact us--without success. Then Congress defunded it, and they found some rich millionaires to dump their money into. (Good for them!) But now we have to start the UFO thing again. Let's ignore the fact that no actual documented UFOs occurred until after the 1950s when we, the people, had invented all sorts of airplanes. Let's also ignore the fact that the videos of "UFOs" that were "declassified" all look like film anomalies to me. I'm sorry. I couldn't stop myself from rolling my eyes while I watched. <p></p><p>But this post isn't about any of that really. This post is about the seal of the Pentagon's new "UFO division." That's right--your taxpayer dollars back at work trying to figure out why these trained filmographers--or rather trained pilots or army guys or whomever else turned on the camera--managed to capture some weird specks of dus...I mean UFOs on their film. This is about Latin.</p><p>Now the seal says at the top: "universum mutao est." No capital letters, but definitely a period at the end. I took the image from the official government website. I have seen Latin in all capitals (sometimes with a dot floating in the middle of the line for a period or even between words, and with normal capitals and end punctuation, but I have never seen it with all lowercase AND a period at the end?!</p><p>Now, universum is easy--that means sort of a neuter universe. But what in the world (or in the universe) is mutao est???!!! I think they were trying to do "is changing???" But, and I admit my Latin is a little rusty, I think it should be "universum mutatur" because I am pretty sure there isn't a present continuous in Latin. </p><p>The second part is extremely screwy. It has two "est"s and they are both spelled the same way. I mean "vita nostra" is "our life" because both nouns end the same so we know they need to be together modifying each other. The endings of the words, which should tell us their place in the sentence and which make Latin a whole lot clearer than English, are inexplicably confusing!?!? Now, I have not cheated and tried to look up what they thought they were saying, but I can't for the life of my figure out what the second "nostra" is supposed to be modifying either. Cogitationes is a verb that means "we thinking" as it is written, but they seem to be using it as a noun? Facere is "to do", so that gives me "our life" and then "is that we thinking our to do is" if I translate the rest of the words in order. If I follow the endings, technically, the second "our" should also be at the front because there is no other noun I can find that it could modify? Our our life is that we thinking to do is." </p><p>The universe might be changing, but I am pretty sure the wording on the seal really needs to change. I usually do not have trouble reading Latin, even though I am a little rusty, but this makes no sense to me. Maybe there is a Latin teacher out there somewhere who could explain it.</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-57562886821502880172023-06-13T10:45:00.004-07:002023-06-13T10:45:56.767-07:00World War III--Vietnam on a Whole New Level<p> As most of us go about our day, we are unaware of a little reported massive military provocation taking place. You see, the United States has convinced NATO nations to mobilize in a "training exercise." This mobilization is not about "deterrence" according to <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/06/07/us-sends-2000-guard-troops-100-aircraft-unprecedented-nato-exercise-aimed-deter-russia.html" target="_blank">Lt. General Michael A. Loh, Director of the U.S. Air National Guard</a>. It is about preparing our troops to go against a "great power." Can anyone guess what that "great power" is? The U.S. has in effect mobilized almost its entire military force to Europe and the Pacific. </p><p>I am reminded of another king who wanted to show foreigners all his riches. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2020%3A12-19&version=NIV" target="_blank">2 Kings 20:12-19</a>, King Hezekiah wanted to also display his power and riches to Babylon. The prophets told him afterward he was going to lose everything he showed them. And he did. </p><p>I am shocked--although I shouldn't be--that Americans are blind as they were in the days before Vietnam. At that time, we weren't fighting in Vietnam to start with, we were just moving our troops to surrounding countries for support. When the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers" target="_blank">Pentagon Papers </a>were released, it was discovered the Gulf of Tonkin incident that made Americans unite and accept the entry into war was known about months prior to it happening. Now, we have documents that were released showing our Special Forces are already in Ukraine. </p><p>I get that only a couple sentences are devoted to Vietnam in our history books, but how many times are Americans going to rally behind destroying a country with "<a href="https://apnews.com/article/iraq-war-wmds-us-intelligence-f9e21ac59d3a0470d9bfcc83544d706e" target="_blank">weapons of mass destruction</a>" and give up the lives of their children for war? How many times are Americans going to think they can easily win a war against the Taliban or North Vietnamese--or another "great power" for that matter? How many times are Americans going to believe if they lose this one country--Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine--"democracy" everywhere will fall? </p><p>We have <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/here-is-every-artwork-attacked-by-climate-activists-this-year-from-the-mona-lisa-to-girl-with-a-pearl-earring-2200804" target="_blank">environmentalists destroying artwork</a> and protesting against global warming--but where are the environmentalists when we are going to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-set-to-approve-depleted-uranium-tank-rounds-for-ukraine-f6d98dcf" target="_blank">ship depleted uranium rounds</a> to Ukraine and cause a nuclear pollution incident worse that Chernobyl? That radiation hit the U.S. Do you think this radiation won't?</p><p>Our military isn't what it was. We have had years of spending cuts in all the wrong places. Those who join <a href="https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/allowances/bas.aspx" target="_blank">no longer get free meals</a> and <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-120.pdf" target="_blank">uniforms</a>--soldiers pay for them from money automatically withdrawn from their checks. Anyone who has been in or followed things like the development of the F-35 knows the equipment we have doesn't work well and is being held together by ingenuity in some cases. In the 1990s, for example, soldiers were using Vietnam era rifles whose safeties didn't work. Although our military budget has ballooned since then, it goes for "developing" new toys, like the F-35, that have <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/16/the-number-of-major-f-35-flaws-is-shrinking-but-the-pentagon-is-keeping-details-of-the-problems-under-wraps/" target="_blank">no real function because of all the bugs still not fixed after more than a decade</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=541d12c31b16" target="_blank">are more like a Ferrari that you don't drive to work everyday</a>.</p><p>The Pentagon, who is our governments primary advisors about war, is also not what most Americans believe it is. It does not contain military personnel interpreting intelligence data. Instead, it is mostly staffed by <a href="https://inthesetimes.com/article/joe-biden-department-of-defense-pentagon-transition-team-weapons-industry-military" target="_blank">CEOs from weapon manufacturers</a>. These people leave their jobs, work at the Pentagon shaping war policy for a bit, and then return to them. </p><p>That Congress is not aware--or doesn't care-- is a tragedy. Granted, most of them are so old they would not have children under 25 who could be drafted and they would simply send their grandkids to college or Canada to avoid it. You can get your degree as a lawyer and join the military during war without having to worry you will actually see combat. For most Americans, this isn't an option for our kids. We lost half-a-million soldiers during WWII. Worldwide there were 15 million soldier deaths and 38 million civilian deaths. Although WWII was fought in Europe and the Pacific, if we start WWIII, I can guarantee China and Russia will make sure we feel it at home. </p><p>To end the Korean War after 3 million people died during the fighting, we split North and South Korea apart. How easy would it be to do that to Ukraine now, before the bloodbath includes our kids?</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-50773394291695871582023-05-02T12:47:00.032-07:002023-05-06T04:31:21.017-07:00Clash of Clans Unsafe on Many Levels<p> Again, I don't want to turn this into a gaming blog--it is mostly focused on news, but I feel it is important for parents to know things that are not being reported about Clash of Clans on most review sites. Primarily, Clash of Clans is unsafe for kids unless parents have control of the clan they are part of and Parents keep the clan "invite only" or "closed" to outsiders. Second, Clash of Clans is easily hacked. </p><p>I am writing this after about a month of play. I will continue playing, but we have closed our clan to any outsiders at this point. That said, I now know that my account could easily be taken by a stranger at any point and that unless you are a big time gaming YouTuber, your chances of them doing anything about it are slim.</p><p>First, Clash of Clans was having problems with global chat so they banned it. They also seem to prevent personal questions from being asked to some degree. (Any blocked out words can be rewritten to fool automatic censors.) This, however, does not prevent young children from giving out their name or location to others that might have built up trust with them in clan chat. Further, the "report" system is very bad. (1) Clan leaders cannot automatically delete offensive chat messages. When we were an open to all clan, we frequently had people join and talk about their body parts inappropriately or saying they wanted to "fack" someone and asking for phone numbers. The leader could kick these people out of the clan and report the messages, but the messages remained in chat for anyone to see--even people who joined after they were posted. A clan leader should have ultimate control over the clan chat and be able to instantly delete messages they report, but they do not. (2) Clash of clans allows its abbreviation: "COC" which is unfortunately a misspelling of an inappropriate word. Users take advantage of this and many descriptions and clan names talk about their "COC." Further, it seems to be relatively easy to fool the AI and clan names such as FitchBuckers exist, among many other inappropriate names that talk about all sorts of body parts and inappropriate things. In order to advance, you must randomly fight others and you (and your children) will eventually come across these clans and and even users. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to report clan names or descriptions. (3) Reporting someone for inappropriate behavior can take up to two days. Clash of Clans then gives the player a temporary ban. Retaliation is real--even though the player does not know who reported him/her, they obviously know if they have been kicked out of a clan. If within two days they then get a temporary ban, it would not be hard to put two and two together. Further, if the clan is still open, they can join again. To the best of my knowledge Clash of Clans does not have a way of prohibiting specific players from joining. </p><p>In our case, one of these people rejoined our clan, changed our description (somehow) to read that it had been taken down by a moderator and got our Clan leader banned for spamming people with ads (which was completely untrue). Keep in mind that Clash of Clans supposedly spent two days investigating this person and their inappropriate message (we have 14 year old girls in our clan) was still posted for them to see if they wanted. Clash of Clans states the clan description was changed from inside the clan, but the only two people who have the power to do that did not do it. That means this person somehow was able to hack the system and allow it to think they had the authority to do so. This person, who was probably only slapped on the wrist with a two day suspension by Clash of Clans, has gone on to other clans and changed their description to the same thing he changed ours to. Even though we had not only reported this guy but also then reported the changes he made to our description, the person still had an active account the last I checked. There should be an easy way to determine if a person is reporting someone in retaliation--and these reports should be thoroughly checked before another player is banned. Apparently, they are not. If our leader gets banned again because of retaliation, it may be a permanent ban since she already has one unjust ban on her record.</p><p>Clash of Clans (owned by Supercell) is also unsafe as far as account recovery is concerned. It is reported that nearly 5% of the users have their accounts hacked. YouTube gamers and other online review sites that actually talk about this problem push using Supercell ID to "protect" your account. The only thing Supercell ID does is link all your Supercell accounts together on your phone and give you 50 free gems. Numerous players who user Supercell ID have their accounts hacked--telling you to use it is merely passing the blame on to the victim. </p><p>One Clash of Clans gamer repeatedly told fans to change your passwords frequently to prevent your account from being hacked. Again, this is blaming the user (instead of poor game security) and it also is completely pointless. Supercell does not use passwords at all.</p><p>The real problem is that Supercell makes it easy for bots to attack them. To get an account in your name, you simply have to say you lost access to your old e-mail and you don't even remember what that e-mail address was. Supercell will then ask you a series of questions, including questions about things you bought with real money. </p><p>Again, professional gamers (you can even donate to these people in-game) say, you simply have to make real purchases with money and don't lose those receipts and that will protect you. The problem is, again, that if you spend money on this game that will not prevent a hacker from taking over your account. You may be able to get it back, but there have been reports that this is not always easy and some negative reviews state the person had all the data, but still could not get the account. One person revealed that this is because bots can plant fake receipts in the account. Obviously, you would have no knowledge of these receipts, but the hackers would. Further, if the account was inactive for a month or so, a hacker took control of it, and then you tried to reclaim it, there would be no way for you to know the activity since that hacker took over and the last e-mail address you used would not be the same as the one the hacker is now using. </p><p>Also, one question you must answer is about the time your base was created. Again, anyone has access to your ID number by simply scanning through top player lists or even battling you, and anyone can view your base. The ID number and base itself can tell them approximately when your base was created, and in most cases this date is close enough to get the question "correct."</p><p>Most online businesses send an e-mail to your old account if you are reportedly changing it because you lost the e-mail. Clash of Clans does not take this security step. Nor do they send a text to a phone number you have on file to confirm you are making any e-mail or phone access changes. These are two easy security steps Supercell could use before changing any account information. Instead, they simply make the change if enough questions are answered correctly--in some cases, people have reported being able to change their accounts without providing any information. </p><p>Considering that people spend money on Clash of Clans, and yet can easily lose their accounts to hackers (1 in 20 people is too big of odds in my opinion), who then resell the accounts for large amounts of money, and your chances of recovering it are slim unless you are one of those gamers with millions of followers who advertise for Clash of Clans by playing it on YouTube, this game is completely unsafe. </p><p>If, for example, you have a family clan and a hacker takes over one of your accounts, takes over the clan, kicks you out , but leaves your kids in and sells it, this creates serious issues. As I said, I am going to continue playing for my kids' sake, but I do not think I would have let them join at all in the beginning if I knew all this ten years ago. Currently, I believe the only thing that offers some protection is if you create a clan for your family that is closed to everyone else. You will probably never be able to get all the bonuses and benefits (unless you have 50 people in your family), but it will create a much safer environment than allowing your kids to play alone and join someone else's clan. Further, if you allow your kids to play, understand that they may be assigned to fight one of many people who have inappropriate names and they will also be able to access inappropriate descriptions. There is no way to lock your children into your clan alone and therefore, if you are not watching, they could easily drop out and join any other clan where they would not be protected at all. </p><p>Although most of this is simple internet security, Clash of Clans is cartoony and looks like a kid friendly app. Unfortunately, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing and few of the review sites are talking about that. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeu92cVvngeueXOXb2Msqdk0vbO4hYNxrjeDLJFP0eUh3vk0qiFhy7azmye3w1NXXHFtX-DLwQLzg02W7wUcMsAIfHSHJEjNoCjJu1uNrxPKTUkfQ6Vo7hIyNCHPIiIQ4BXooBrJ9p47JsAakIVzaBz-wlZti5FG1ssp_fju7IdrVgS7vmU85XflKZmA/s2360/B%20Gang.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1052" data-original-width="2360" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeu92cVvngeueXOXb2Msqdk0vbO4hYNxrjeDLJFP0eUh3vk0qiFhy7azmye3w1NXXHFtX-DLwQLzg02W7wUcMsAIfHSHJEjNoCjJu1uNrxPKTUkfQ6Vo7hIyNCHPIiIQ4BXooBrJ9p47JsAakIVzaBz-wlZti5FG1ssp_fju7IdrVgS7vmU85XflKZmA/w581-h259/B%20Gang.jpg" width="581" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-45258574156871295662023-04-13T09:03:00.003-07:002023-04-13T09:03:49.462-07:00Free-to-Play or Pay-to-Win: Dungeons and Dragons Online vs. Clash of Clans<p> This is not my normal type of post, but after my children convinced me to join Clash of Clans (CoC) about a month ago, and my dissatisfaction with its pay-to-win model, I decided to write this. With CoC and its appeal to young kids and teens, there is a significant risk for these age groups--if they have access to money. It seems that a lot of people are confused about what "pay-to-win" means. I attribute this to people who do pay to win games defending their investment as fair play. It also seems people are confused about what "pay-to-win" means.</p><p>So, what does pay-to-win mean? Pay-to-win is not simply being able to pay a price and be declared the winner of a game. Pay-to-win also does not mean that you can only get some necessary content by paying for it--that would be more of a "freemium" model. So, although a video game might be classified as "pay-to-win" or "free-to-play," if it gives you only a small portion of the game for free and you have to pay to get the rest (not earn points over time, but actually pay or the ending is blocked), it would be considered freemium. An example of this would be games like the Diner Dash series or the Delicious Emily series. You cannot get past a certain level of these games without paying real money. That makes them freemium.</p><p>Free-to-play is a subset of the freemium business model. This is where you get all the content of the game for free--although there may be some ads in the game. Solitaire or minesweeper would be examples of this. You can download them for free and get access to all the content, but they have ads and sometimes your gameplay is stopped to display them. </p><p>Pay-to-win is a subset of the free-to-play model. A frequent mechanic of pay-to-win games is that you have to wait a certain amount of time before necessary content can be accessed. Both Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO) and CoC use this model, as do other games like Candy Crush. However, there are vast differences in the way this model is implemented in these games that make DDO at pay-to-win that you cannot really pay-to-win and CoC entirely pay-to-win, with Candy Crush somewhere in the middle.</p><p>As I already said, I have played CoC about a month--I have never bought anything in-game with real money, nor do I ever plan to do so. I have been playing DDO about 8 years. I have occasionally bought in-game content with real money, and I plan to continue doing so. So why do I consider CoC pay-to-win and DDO not really pay-to-win?</p><p>Obviously, I cannot look at the actual programs. I can say that there is no way to determine if someone in DDO is VIP(regular subscribers who pay a monthly fee and may also pay additional fees) or Premium (what I am) or 100% free-to-play (they have never spent a real cent on the game). However, after playing CoC, I have begun to wonder if the programming itself is biased toward people who pay for things with real money. I have noticed that in player-vs.-player battles, I get constantly attacked by people who are a higher level than I am. My kids (who to the best of my knowledge have never bought anything in-game with real money because they do not have access to real money) agree that they also get constantly attacked by people of higher levels. When you get hit 20x in a row by someone who is higher level than you--no matter what time of day you play--and you only fight someone your own level on occasion, you begin to wonder how that can randomly happen. What are the odds of randomly drawing someone higher level than you and rarely drawing someone of equal level? In a regular attack on someone else, a person one level above you is difficult but not too difficult because you only have to get one star to win. But in a player-vs.-player battle, you have to score better than them. Getting stars is the priority. If you destroy 48% of their base and they destroy 13% of yours but happened to get your town hall and win one star--you lose. If both of you get 13%, but they lost all their troops quicker than you did, they win. In other words, you can fight people your own level and still lose on technicalities.</p><p>But the level differences are drastic. Between levels 3 and 4 at your builder base doubles the maximum number of troops you can field and the variety. It also doubles most of your defenses. After that, each level gives you a maximum of 8 more until level 7, where your maximum goes from 48 to 70. </p><p>As I said, I can't see the programming--perhaps the imbalance can be easily explained by other reasons than that people who pay are given preference to battle people of lower level, but even if it is a programming oddity, the frustration of losing battle after battle after battle to people who are higher level, with more defenses and troops, is very real. </p><p>And that is where the pay-to-win comes in. You only get a certain number of builders--you can either build one thing or upgrade one thing and there is no way to queue what you want that builder to do next. I spent the first three days of my game experience watching my phone like crazy so I could immediately start another project when my builder was free. More builders cost emeralds. Just like builders are in short supply, resources are also in short supply. It, for example, only costs about 20,000 elixir and 20,000 gold to get from level 1 to 2. It would take 5 hours of constant play. To get to level 4 with everything maxed out would take about 2 weeks and over 3 million elixir. (Once fully upgraded at this level you can make 228,000 gold/elixir per day-- so you have to battle to get more if you want to meet the 2 week goal.) However, to max everything out at level 5 takes almost 6 million elixirs and gold (combined-about 3 million each). It will also take about a month. And that is just for your main base. Oh, and when you work on your defensive structures they are useless.</p><p>And this is how you pay to win. You can buy gems to (1) speed up the work, (2) purchase gold or elixir you don't have (3) buy a shield so no one can attack you for 18 days every 35 days (4) get buffs. Not only can you build your own village quickly and max out your level, you can also build an entire clan with gems. Since the key to winning battles and defending your village is having a maxed out village, you can pay to get maxed out as quickly as you can click. Place a guard on your village while you are maxing everything out and leveling up your town hall, and you will always be the top of your level. When you are done fighting other people, put another guard on your village to prevent defeats. Since having more wins raises you to the top of the leaderboards, you can pay-to-win, especially since every defeat lowers your status. Obviously, if you are level 4 and have maxed everything out and going against another level 4 who hasn't maxed everything out, you will probably win. Or if you go against a level 4 who happens to be upgrading his/her archer towers (and therefore they cannot fight), you are much more likely to win. At least one of the people at the top of the leaderboards has admitted to spending over $2,500 on the game. </p><p>This is why I think the algorithm is slanted in the vs. battles. As I said, it is easier to win multiplayer battles, where you just fight their defenses that it is to win vs. battles. If you win, you want to keep playing. If you lose every battle, especially after paying who knows how much, you are going to get angry and stop playing (and thereby stop paying). This is why I think the game is further slanted against those who do not play. Again, my suspicion is because I am constantly pitted against higher level players. Are there really that many more higher level players playing at any given time? But even if there is not a planned algorithm to make it easier for those who pay by pitting them against lower players, those who pay still have an advantage because they can instantly upgrade. </p><p>DDO has a similar game mechanic. Instead of emeralds, you can purchase DDO points. Like CoC, you can also earn these points in-game. In CoC, you get emeralds by completing certain tasks. Each time you complete a task, the next task is more difficult or requires a higher and higher level to achieve with less of a gem payout. For example, if you loot 20,000 gold, you get 10 gems. If you loot 1,000,000 (x50), you get 100 gems (x10); if you loot 100,000,000 (x100) you get 1000 (x10). As you level up and fight higher level villages, you get more loot. However, after the third achievement is completed, you can no longer earn gems. To get your first extra builder for gems it costs 500. Finishing a building that takes 8 hours to complete can cost 100-200 gems the longer it takes the more it costs. </p><p>In DDO, you earn DDO points for completing quests or you can purchase them. The quests give you favor--and you can get the most favor by completing the quest on elite difficulty. If you are a new character who is free-to-play, you can only open a quest on normal, so you have to run it three times to get the most favor out of it or run it with someone who can open it on elite or higher. Once you get to level 20 or above, you can start your character over (reincarnate) at level 1 again and re-earn the favor/DDO points indefinitely. The first time you reincarnate you can open quests on hard, the second time and thereafter you can open them on elite. Also, the first time you reach favor milestones on each of the 8 normal servers or on the hardcore server, you get bonus DDO points. You can then use these points to buy expansion packs for 100-4000 DDO points (they get cheaper the older they are). Further, most of the expansion packs are regularly offered for free or at greatly discounted prices. </p><p>DDO points can make you stronger by purchasing quests to get gear out of them--but you still have to run the quests to get the gear (sometimes repeatedly). There is nothing to make a quest go faster. You can level up and make your character stronger, but you don't get XP if you are too high a level and running a lower level quest. You can get an XP potion in the store that makes you collect XP at a higher rate, but you also get these through daily dice rolls randomly or by trading other items in-game--and you still have to spend the same amount of time running the quests at level or above. You can buy a box in the store that quickly gets you from level 1 to 20 or from level 20 to 30, but again, you will miss out on treasure that might have made your character stronger by not running the quests. The only thing these are really good for is improving established characters. </p><p>The best way a person could use money to make their character stronger is buy creating a guild--but even if you buy the best ship in the game (which is difficult to do immediately without DDO points), you cannot get any buffs out of it until the guild itself is leveled up. For example, you cannot get any buffs if you guild is below level 10. Again, you can buy potions to speed up XP (or get them free in daily rolls), but you still have to run the quests and do the work. </p><p>Unlike CoC, DDO does not have a "leaderboard" except for the Hardcore League Server. There are two leaderboards there: Most Favor and Most Reaper XP. You can drink a potion to increase your XP, but you cannot drink a potion to increase your favor. Again, the only way to get on either of these is to run quests without dying. (If you die once on the Hardcore server, you need to create a new character--and as soon as you die you are removed from the leaderboard. There isn't something you can buy to keep you from dying.) You can fight other players in a tavern brawl, but there isn't really anything you get out of it except broken armor. Telling others you are king of tavern brawl won't impress them as much as saying you are a triple completionist (you have been from 1 to 20 forty-five times). But, let's say you wanted to buy the boxes and become a triple completionist as fast as possible. You can still only reincarnate once every three days. It would take you about five months to do that. At the end, you could tell people you were a triple completionist, but no one would believe you because you wouldn't have run the quests to get needed gear and your character would still not be able to survive. Considering there are some people who reincarnate every three days without having to buy the boxes, you really haven't given yourself an advantage over anyone else. And, when new classes come out, you have to run those three times, too, to keep the small buff triple completionists get. </p><p>Whereas money in CoC gives you an advantage by allowing you to max up your stuff and win battles, in DDO it gives you wants not needs. If you want more bank space, that costs DDO points. Being able to keep a bunch of old junk or spell materials you aren't using doesn't give you a marked advantage over other players. It's a nice amenity. </p><p>This leads me to the danger of CoC. Unlike DDO, which is not targeted to kids, CoC uses cartoons and easy play to attract children to it. DDO has a complex mechanic that makes it difficult to play without the help of the gaming community (many are more than willing to help new players). CoC can be figured out by a six-year old without parental guidance. However, kids are impatient, and many want the recognition of being at the top of game leaderboards. We usually get video game purchases or gift cards for presents at Christmas, but if a parent were to put their credit card information into CoC, the child could potentially keep making purchases. (This is also a potential problem with DDO--which used to allow parents to buy things for others and gave them a code for the child to put in, but now you have to put in and then delete your purchase information.) Again, parents have to be aware of this. We do not put our credit card information into games as a general rule, but had we done this our youngest child would have spent tons of money the first few years she was online gaming. We had to repeatedly tell her not to get into that screen and that they wanted real money. With CoC, its easy and cheap on the surface --99 cents here, $14.99 there. The cheapest packs from DDO points are $9.99 and expansions usually have three tiers starting at $39.99. Points and expansions also go on sale throughout the year. If you are a serial spender--constantly wanting new cosmetic armor, pets, or bank space to store them--who can't wait for purchases, you may find yourself repeatedly buying DDO points, but again none of these things are necessary for game success. Once the expansions are bought, they are yours permanently. They usually have one or two new expansions each year. We generally only buy points or expansions at Christmas when they are on sale. Are we paying to win DDO? It certainly doesn't feel like it. If I spent money on CoC it would feel like I was getting much more of an advantage. </p><p>In short, there is nothing wrong with pay-to-win games or those who can afford to pay in them. I am sure there are many people in CoC who play and who pride themselves on the fact they have never spent a dime (just as there are in DDO). However, when children are targeted or when people who can't afford it find themselves addicted to the must-complete gimmick, they can become troublesome. In DDO, this manifests in players who zerg through quests without concern for others who are enjoying it more than in people constantly hitting the "buy" button.</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-32332224266122655432023-04-06T15:38:00.000-07:002023-04-06T15:38:02.313-07:00Crucifying a Conservative Black Man--Just in Time for Easter<p> Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow" target="_blank">is being crucified in the news this week</a> because he happened to have a rich conservative friend (gasp--a conservative has a conservative friend) with whom he went on vacations. No where in <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges" target="_blank">the judicial code</a> does it say that Supreme Court Justices (or any judges for that matter) cannot have friends, attend parties, or go on vacations with other like-minded people. In fact, Courts across the nation have ruled that you must get your paycheck from a Plaintiff/Defendant or someone who could be a Plaintiff/Defendant in the case or one on a similar subject matter in order to recuse. They have also ruled that if you were put in your position by one of the Plaintiff/Defendants, (i.e. if someone made large donations to your election or re-election campaign), you also should recuse. Justices do not even have to disclose their financial information. But Clarence Thomas wasn't involved in an election campaign and the person he was vacationing with has never, to the best of my knowledge, been before him in a legal case. Remember that.</p><p>The Code of Conduct for Judges also specifically states that a Judge cannot publicly give his or her opinion on a case prior to it coming before the judge, the judge reviewing the evidence from both sides, and then the judge officially giving his/her ruling. So, why wasn't RBG impeached or at least threatened with impeachment as Clarence Thomas is being threatened with impeachment? Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230406214559/https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/09/21/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-couple-wedding-officiant-supreme-court-dead-pancreatic-cancer/" target="_blank">performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward</a>--PRIOR TO RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. When the case came before her, she didn't even think about recusing despite the clear guidelines that she must do so. Again, Clarence Thomas is a conservative black man. RBG was a liberal white woman. Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a rich, outspoken conservative. At no point did he discuss any of his cases or publicly make statements about them prior to deciding them based only on the evidence before him and the law. RBG, on the other hand, publicly supported gay marriages and performed them even when they were not legal, but her failure to recuse went by silently.</p><p>But let's talk about another judge who hasn't recused--probably the reason everyone is trying to crucify Clarence Thomas--so people don't talk about him. Let's talk about Justice Juan Merchan. In New York, you see, this judge was <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Supreme_Court_1st_Judicial_District#Elections" target="_blank">put into his position directly by the Democratic Party</a>. That's right, in New York, home of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall#:~:text=Tammany%20Hall%2C%20also%20known%20as,1789%2C%20as%20the%20Tammany%20Society." target="_blank">Tammany Hall</a>--the poster child of political corruption. Now, there are 136 judges in New York that are supposed to randomly get cases. Justice Juan Merchan has remarkably managed to draw 4 separate Trump cases and have them assigned to him in just a couple years. Please correct my math if its wrong, but that's like 3 in 1 billion odds. For comparison, in 2021, <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2021" target="_blank">65,000 criminal cases </a>were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this? </p><p>I am willing to say that a judge put in place by the Democrats could rule in an unbiased manner against someone the Democrats loath and absolutely do not want running for office in the next election, but I start to waver on that when I look at Trump's current indictment. Justice Juan Merchan allowed Trump to be indicted for 39 counts of hiding criminal actions. The problem is that Trump was not indicted for said CRIMINAL ACTIONS. How can a person be indicted for hiding criminal actions without BEING INDICTED FOR THOSE ACTIONS? The district attorney brought absolutely no other criminal charges. If Trump was hiding a crime, why wasn't he charged with that crime? If you don't have enough evidence that he committed one or more crimes, why in the world are you charging him with anything? </p><p>Well, that's simple--although it is something that most unbiased courts frown upon. During court discovery, the Prosecuting attorney can ask for pretty much anything and Trump has to give it to him or try to get the judge to agree that the Prosecuting attorney doesn't need it. Now, imagine that every single detail of your life could be brought into a lawsuit--that little monitor in your car that records your speed wherever you go, for example, or all your checkbook records, your personal diary, your calendars...Can you say you have never broken a single law in all your life? Most people don't even read and know all the laws. So, if the judge doesn't stop it, the prosecuting attorney can go on a fishing expedition. And even if he doesn't find anything, he can still say Trump was hiding criminal intent and did it so well there isn't evidence of the actual crime. That's not the way the courts are supposed to work, but the case should have been thrown out from the beginning unless the prosecutor charged Trump with an actual crime that he was hiding. That Justice Juan Merchan did not do that is what makes me believe he should recuse. When that is added to all the other information about him, I question whether he could rule against the wishes of the party that put him in office. </p><p>But Clarence Thomas going on vacation with friends is the topic of the poor news agencies this week. For them, Justice Juan Merchan is a hero, just as RBG was. I, personally, would like MORE black men on our Supreme Court. I fail to understand how going on vacation with a like-minded person could influence you in any way as a judge. You already agree on most topics--so where is the influence?</p><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-69397274345609900042023-03-30T07:25:00.002-07:002023-03-30T07:25:36.226-07:00DON'T Say Their Name<p>Active shooters have one thing in common--they want to go down in an infamous blaze of glory with their names plastered across the news. Not only does the news media grant their dying wish and encourage others to do the same, but some news agencies try to look into the psychology of the person doing the shooting and empathize with them. Yes, when sociopaths and those with untreated mental illness attack others, those of us who are sane question why they would do that. The answer is simple: They are insane. Never should a news agency use mental illness as an excuse for what these people do--hundreds of millions of people suffer with mental illness every day and most who get treatment are still suffering due to the trial and error process that no scientist has been tasked with resolving. Poverty or abusive families is also not the answer--again hundreds of millions of children suffer abuse and poverty and do not shoot anyone. </p><p>The Tennessee shooting, where we have evidence the shooter wanted to both die and to make it on the news--the real motives of this evil person, shows us that our media needs to be more discrete in granting these shooters wishes. Imagine if all news agencies stopped printing shooter names and pictures and solely focused on the victims. Imagine if all news agencies simply referred to the perpetrators as "the evil shooter" and solely stated the person did it because s/he was evil. Some shooters wouldn't care that they were considered evil, but all of them want their names and images in the press. </p><p>I would love to say that people can fix this by simply not clicking on the articles, but unfortunately, you don't always know if an article is going to talk about the shooter or the brave souls who confronted the shooter and the victims. Everyone can complain to news agencies and block them for a month if they use shooter names or try to empathize with mass shooters. It is time for our society to stop making bad people seem justified in their action. Scientists have long realized that people who don't suffer any negative consequences for their bad actions continue doing bad actions. </p><p>Unfortunately, bad scientists who grouped abusive practices in with spanking on the butt convinced parents they don't need to discipline their children. Worse scientists convinced everyone involved in children's lives to give them unearned rewards and praise that was not earned and to downplay half-hearted efforts. These humanists did what they could to push a lie: People are inherently good. Real science shows that people left to their own means will inherently do bad things (although the level of bad varies among them). People need to suffer consequences for their bad choices and putting a killer's name and image all over the news when that is exactly what they want is encouraging others to make the same bad choices. </p><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-69527930233168382422022-05-16T08:34:00.001-07:002022-05-16T08:34:00.178-07:00NATO Helps a Global Criminal Control Ukraine<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">By
sanctioning Russia and sending weapons to Ukraine, we are helping this global
criminal, to whom Hunter Biden has connections, control an entire country?
(note, the citations are from U.S. newspapers):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">“Igor <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/31/hunter-bidens-ukraine-contahttps:/nypost.com/2020/10/31/hunter-bidens-ukraine-contact-allegedly-fixer-for-rulers/ct-allegedly-fixer-for-rulers/"><span style="background: white; border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #c60800; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">Kolomoisky, </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">who built his
fortune during the lawless years immediately following the fall of the Soviet
Union, reportedly has a controlling interest in Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and
gas company which put President Biden’s son, </span><a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/"><span style="background: white; border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #c60800; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">Hunter, </span></a><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">on its board of
directors in 2014 at a salary of $50,000 per month. Kolomoisky dispatched his
private army to take over companies and destroy a Russian-owned oil and gas
refinery in Dnipropetrovsk in 2014,<a href="https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine-money-laundering-gave-millions-to-ny-charities/"> according to reports.</a>”</span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">Kolomoisky also owns 70% interest in 1+1,
which is the television station that ran Zelensky’s television show and paid
for him to get into office with money Kolomoiaky stole from his own bank and
hid in oversees accounts—that Zelensky had interest in but handed off to a
buddy upon his election—however, Zelensky (perfect leader that he is) <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/09/russia-ukraine-jordan-lebanon-pandora-papers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/pandora-papers-offshore-finance/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2&itid=lk_inline_manual_2">stillgets profits from those overseas accounts through his wife</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #2a2a2a; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">Also, “</span><span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><a href=" https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/03/28/president-v-oligarch">after Mr Kolomoisky deployed hispersonal militia in Kiev to block the government from regulating his businessinterests, the [former] president [Petro Poroshenko] had no choice but to sackhim.</a></span>” So, Kolomoisky made sure Poroshenko was no longer president by running Zelensky
instead. Kolomoisky, a person of Jewish descent like Zelensky, allegedly f<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war-crimes-committed-ukrainian-nationalist-volunteers-grows-269604">unds theAzov Battalion, Aidar and other Neo-Nazi groups</a>. At least one member of the Azov Battalion believes that once the war with
Russia is over they will march on Kyiv and oust the government and <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/10/ukraine-azov-brigade-nazis-abuses-separatists/24664937/">wasn’tafraid to brag about this to USA today in 2015</a>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Our
own current secretary of state, Antony Blinken stated, “</span><span style="color: #313132; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-idUSKBN2AX1MC">I also want toexpress concern about Kolomoyskyy’s current and ongoing efforts to undermineUkraine’s democratic processes and institutions, which pose a serious threat toits future</a>.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> Ukraine is anything but a freely democratic country. Its people are fighting for it, but freely admit the corruption that is there. They are fighting for it because they are defending their country, and the west keeps telling them the lie that Russia is going to take it from them. NATO is responsible for the innocent citizens who are killed--not Russia. The United States is responsible for setting up a corrupt regime in 2014--as it has done in every other country it invaded and overthrew the government (Libya, Kosovo, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) Just because our tactics have changed, and we now use social media and "community organizers" (read: professional riot starters) does not mean we are just in our actions. </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> This time, supplying neo-Nazis and going against Russia, is going to be our final downfall, I believe. While Russia is forming tighter bonds with China (who hasn't foolishly contributed any of its military to the Ukraine conflict), the west as a whole under NATO is dumping weapons and arms into a country that will NEVER pay them back. As we deplete our stockpiles and prevent agreed upon shipments of weapons from going to places like Taiwan because we are redistributing them to the puppets in Ukraine, we are severing ties and making ourselves militarily vulnerable. It will take decades to rebuild what we have already sent--and we are not showing signs of stopping, we are just digging into more stockpiles we may find ourselves in need of in the future.</o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Stop these criminal supporting warlords from destroying our country over this. Vote for anyone but a Democrat or Republican!</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-68577372331456555632022-05-09T05:56:00.003-07:002022-05-09T05:56:18.302-07:00Ukraine Idiocy<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Long before Tucker Carlson decided to speak out against the war
with Russia our current government encouraged, I was speaking out
against our idiocy. In fact, I started speaking out back when President Obama
was in office and the <a href="https://rssnewshomepage.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-do-you-do-when-you-are-powerful.html">United Stated funded the overthrow of the rightful UkrainianPresident who had been elected in a U.N. supervised election</a>. We overthrew that
leader just as we have helped to overthrow numerous leaders in sham “elections”
throughout the world—and when our behind the scenes dirty deeds don’t work, we
use military force. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I spoke out because we started this thing with Russia and
then conveniently gave Hunter Biden a job. (He is unemployable in the United
States because he was dishonorably discharged under an officer’s “general” discharge
since he had done cocaine a few months after manipulating the system to ignore his
previous cocaine use and age and let him into the military.) However, while in office, it
seems the Former President Trump, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/white-house-acknowledges-strings-attached-in-trump-withholding-ukraine-aid-idUSKBN1WW1BG">who was trying to dig up dirt on Hunter and the current President</a>, discovered that many <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20191211/110331/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD069.pdf">upper-level officials were making dirty money in Ukraine</a>. Unfortunately, the former President didn't see the danger or his precarious position because he had all this dirt--perhaps until it was too late. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just as COVID-19 “miraculously” appeared on the scene and gave
the government a chance to make former President Trump look like a fool by
contradicting him in an Orwellian manner: CDC et al.-don’t wear masks they can’t
protect you…Trump-Don’t wear masks … CDC et al.-Wear masks! …Trump: But I thought
masks can’t protect me from it, that’s what you just told me… CDC et al.: They
protect others, not you, you idiot! President Trump will kill us if he stays
President! <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, I never liked President Trump, although I admit he did
some good things, he also did some bad things. But replacing one big-mouthed
idiot with another one is not a change. Unfortunately, Democrats made certain
third party candidates did not have a chance in the 2020 elections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The thing is that those in higher up positions who have
dirty Ukrainian hands have realized that they have to destroy Ukraine if they
want to cover their tracks… or at least let the Russians get the data hidden
there so they can say the Russians faked it. But the problem is that they are willing to destroy America to protect their own skin. That is unacceptable. People need to vote for third parties and ONLY third parties this fall. We need to return our current feudalist society to a democracy. Keep money at home for those who need it instead of spending $40 BILLION on weapons we are giving to Ukraine under the guise they will "pay us back." You don't give away money to someone when your own children are hungry. You don't help another country fight a war when your own country is falling apart.<o:p></o:p></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-45454676261061013252022-03-07T06:38:00.000-08:002022-03-07T06:38:52.425-08:00After Years of Being Lied to About Covid-19, The Public Now Jumps on Board with New Ukraine Lies<p> You remember Snake Island--the brave Ukrainians who lost their lives defending it and the Ukrainian President's vow to posthumously award them the equivalent of a medal of honor? <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/snake-island-defenders-alive-ukraine-navy">Except they aren't dead.</a> By why quibble over words? After all, Ukraine will say one thing and then say the exact opposite without blinking an eye.</p><p>Remember that the Ukrainians were winning--they were stopping Russian forces? Oh, but they also were losing and needed NATO's help and weapons. Which is it? </p><p>Remember that the Russians ran out of food and gas? This was spread all over the Western news while the Russian news reported that they would periodically halt troop movement because they thought Ukraine wanted to negotiate or in some cases to allow citizens to flee. But we can't have Russians looking like humanitarians, so we came up with the most ridiculous scenario we could find: they were out of food and gas. Because Russia isn't one of the largest exporters of wheat and gas? Why are the Russians advancing now? Did they suddenly figure out how to fill up?</p><p>Then there was the holocaust memorial that was bombed. Note: this was not done in the first days of the attack, although it could have been, but people still stayed in Kyiv and that museum happened to be close to communications targets. So, five people, who apparently chose not to evacuate, lost their lives. Was it a direct target attacking Jewish people? Or was it a missile gone astray from its communications target? </p><p>Then there is that: Western news reports more than half a million people have evacuated Ukraine while at the same time stating that Russia is surrounding cities and preventing people from evacuating. Which is it? </p><p>Lies like this that were blatant throughout COVID-19 should be easy for Western readers to spot--but apparently we have lost all our common sense. When "four legs good; two legs bad" becomes "four legs good; two legs better" we all have a lot more than Russians to worry about.</p><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-87617688558006869132022-02-02T10:34:00.000-08:002022-02-02T10:34:01.319-08:00It Has Only Taken Two Years for Scientists Today to Start to Figure Out What They Knew Right After the Spanish Flu<p> Well, look at that, our modern scientists finally figured
out what they knew right after the Spanish flu—<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html" target="_blank">lockdowns failed to stopCOVID-19 deaths </a>and spread, and limiting gatherings might have increased
COVID-19 deaths. Some scientists are also finally admitting that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/world/middleeast/omicron-fourth-shot-israel.html" target="_blank">COVID-19boosters don’t help</a>, either. Granted we have known for decades that mRNA shots
are only effective for about 3 months in humans and we knew that although large numbers of antibodies were produced right after vaccination but those numbers did not effectively stop the virus after about 1 month—Guess what? we are working on our
fourth booster one year on here in the West. With the <a href="https://wsbt.com/news/coronavirus/we-do-exist-some-americans-suffer-life-changing-covid-vaccine-injuries" target="_blank">serious side effects now finally being reported</a>, we have to ask if these experimental non-vaccines that don't prevent you from getting or giving COVID-19 are worth it. I am not an alarmist or a conspiracy
theorist. I never have been. But from the beginning, I have said and continue
to say that what we are doing—lockdowns, masks, fake vaccines—is making the
COVID-19 problem worse based on hundreds of years of science that we have thrown out the window—and now science is finally being able to publish the
truth—albeit in a limited manner. Not that the world is listening--<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60092463" target="_blank">Kiribati just enacted lockdown </a>and others are still in <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/austria-lift-lockdown-unvaccinated-residents-82480785" target="_blank">lockdown mode</a> or just now coming out of it. The persons and countries who first suggested lockdowns should be made to pay the rest of the world for their un-scientific sins.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You want COVID-19 to go away, well, there is a simple answer—stop
testing. If we tested for flu as much as we tested for COVID-19, the numbers and
deaths from flu would be 10 times higher than what we have. But we don’t test everyone
who walks into a doctor’s office for flu or mandate everyone who shows up to
work with flu symptoms get tested for it before being allowed back to work. And
that is what is really killing our economy and supply chains and hospitals and
every other place. The problem is that the available jobs we have are being
falsely created temporarily to meet demand while people are out sick with COVID—whether
they are sick or not. Our actually job situation is in a much worse place than
what they are telling us. In addition, stopping testing will make COVID-19 and
the money and power that came with it disappear. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>April is the next spike, let’s see if the CDC
decides to relinquish its power over the world or not.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I knew all this was bunk from the beginning and questioned
why the CDC, which I completely trusted prior to March 2020, was lying or at
least misleading people from everything to the concentration of their bleach
water to masks—but I have lost too many friends because of their bunk to say I told
you so. Now, I know that a lot of people made money off of us—the poor who couldn’t
afford to rent out an entire hotel during lockdowns or throw a party on their
yachts or buy the best foods or get moved to the front of the health care line
and get a private room in a hospital. The problem is that they have done it at
the cost of our lives. I really don’t mind rich or privileged people having
more things or opportunities than me. But when those people are getting their
money by inflicting more suffering on the poor, I have a serious problem with
that. It takes great restraint to not curse them as more of my unvaccinated
friends are being denied medical care after getting COVID-19 from some <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/health/pfizer-vaccine-waning-immunity/index.html" target="_blank">hapless,vaccinated sheep who believed he or she could go out with COVID-19 symptomssince they received these fake “vaccines.”</a> And frankly, I don’t really care if
you are vaccinated or not—if you are sick, whether its from “vaccine” side
effects or a minor cold—stay home. Also, keep in mind that mRNA vaccines were not used because they could be quickly developed- China developed 2 traditional vaccines in the same time it took us to pump mRNA and adenovirus vaccines out. They are being used because they are cheap. Name one time when something "cheap" worked as well or better than the real thing.<o:p></o:p></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-88213259536559921872022-01-29T10:58:00.001-08:002022-01-29T10:58:14.845-08:00Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are ProhibitedI read today in the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/01/religious-leaders-keeping-faith-vaccine/621387/">Atlantic that the Bible</a> does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.<div><br /></div><div>Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. </div><div><br /></div><div>In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.</div>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-32752306910519224202022-01-27T10:59:00.001-08:002022-01-27T10:59:09.191-08:00President Biden Apparently Doesn't Know the Definition of "Total Unanimity"<p> Several news agencies report that NATO is completely in agreement with our choice to invade: SEe for example, <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-european-leaders-total-unanimity-call-russia-ukraine" target="_blank">Fox</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/591124-biden-touts-total-unanimity-with-european-leaders-after-call-on">the Hill</a>. Really? "Unanimity" means "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=unanimity&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS912US913&oq=unan&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60l2.1175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">agreement by all people involved</a>." Croatia is in NATO. It's president has said that if the <b>United States</b> goes to war with Russia over Ukraine, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=unanimity&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS912US913&oq=unan&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60l2.1175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">Croatia will drop out of NATO</a>. Now, although the Croatian president is not the Croatian's NATO contact, he has full control of the military--if he doesn't send troops and drops out of NATO that is what will happen. I suppose since Croatia will no longer be a member that would return the "total unanimity" but as of right now many nations see the <b>United States</b> as the aggressor here. </p><p>Keep in mind that way back when the first revolt broke out in Ukraine, the president that was ousted had been elected in a legal, U.N. supervised election... and the U.S. funded his removal. Since then, we have dumped <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2655520/border-barrier-money-returns-ukraine-aid-package-announced/" target="_blank">billions into equipping and training our Ukrainian </a>puppet government--will Americans ever get tired of this scenario that started with Korea and Vietnam? Hunter Biden, who was no longer employable in the U.S. because of his dishonorable "general" discharge from the military <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439907/Hunter-Biden-admits-Burisma-hired-family-name.html" target="_blank">was given a cushy job in Ukraine because he was the vice-president's son</a>. When Burisma was investigated, former Vice-President Biden said if Ukrainian officials didn't drop the charges, the U.S. would withhold aid... and then <a href="https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html" target="_blank">bragged about doing so on television</a>. Last year, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, when our government was printing money like there was no tomorrow--increasing inflation--we gave Ukraine, out of the goodness of the American people's hearts, more than <b><a href="https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/much-u-spent-aid-ukraine-012539821.html" target="_blank">half a billion dollars</a></b>! This didn't go to the people of Ukraine, by the way, this went to their military, so they could attempt to retake the land Russia has refused to release: The parts of Ukraine that are populated by Russian citizens. </p><p>The biggest question should not be whether the other NATO member countries are willing to go to war over non-NATO Ukraine just to keep U.S. secret dealings there secret. After NATO's failure in Afghanistan, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3ea7e87e-ab3a-4e14-8396-8061420942b0" target="_blank">they were already questioning the alliance</a>. The real question is a<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/few-americans-want-soldiers-deployed-ukraine-russia-war-invasion-poll-1671546" target="_blank">re Americans willing to sacrifice their children to the war effort</a>? Consider the fact we already have American troops on the ground <a href="https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/01/pentagon-puts-8500-troops-heightened-alert-over-russian-threat-ukraine/361105/" target="_blank">"training" Ukrainian military</a>--I don't think the current Administration cares what Americans, or any other European nation, wants. </p><p>The worst thing is that the Pentagon is not filled with time-tested military generals. No, it is filled with <a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/05/28/biden-pentagon-defense-contractors/" target="_blank">defense contractors all set to make money off any war</a>. These are the people telling us we have to go to war with Russia... </p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-85125516531961305462021-10-13T21:53:00.011-07:002021-10-13T22:11:30.650-07:00More Bad "Science"<p> <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/breakthrough-covid-cases-least-125-000-fully-vaccinated-americans-have-n1275500" target="_blank">NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19</a>. Now, sceptic that I am, I crunched the numbers in the article, and... well the case fatality from COVID-19 among the vaccinated is about 1.1%. Then, I did a quick check by crunching the numbers of cases in the US and the case fatality from COVID-19 in general (over the past two years mind you--and doctors were killing them left and right in the beginning)... its 1.6%. So, if you get the vaccine, you are "drastically" reducing your chance of dying from COVID-19 by 0.5%. </p><p>Then I stumbled across this <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20211011230955/https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w" target="_blank">gem published by the CDC</a>. Again, the title and a bunch of technical wording makes it seem as if your chance of dying from COVID-19 is lower if you are vaccinated. This is false. Crunch the numbers yourself. In the 569,000ish people who were not vaccinated and got COVID-19, 1.1% of them died. In the 45,000ish people who were vaccinated and caught COVID-19, 1.3% of them died. That's right--the fully vaccinated were MORE likely to die from getting COVID-19. I also note that while they talk about the "substantial" differences, they fail to mention "significant" differences. This is important. If the paper does not find significant results (and that word is not mentioned at all!!!!) its conclusions should not be trusted. That is the purpose of significance in a scientific study. Shame on the CDC (again) for publishing this piece of fake science. </p><p>Now, lets think about this. Countries in the EU are no longer allowing this or that vaccine because there is an increased risk of heart failure. According to Moderna's own information submitted to the FDA, there is an increase in other major organ issues too. And most mRNA vaccines in the past have also increased your chances of blood clots. I can't tell you how many obituaries of vaccinated people I have read that talk about them dying of stroke and then saying it is "unconnected" to their recent vaccination... For those of you who don't know, a stroke is basically a blood clot in the brain. I know personally of eight people who died "suddenly" within a few days of getting vaccinated and had no previous health issues. So your chance of dying or getting serious internal organ issues after being vaccinated are real. </p><p>Further, the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 for less than 6 months. We have been doing mRNA vaccine research for 20 years and nothing they do has ever made it last very long. After that, your chance of getting COVID-19 doubles. I was wondering why new case numbers are climbing astronomically compared to last year despite the fact more than half the worldwide community is vaccinated. </p><p>I mean, we are used to getting flu vaccines every year--but they have always told us it was a different flu. They are trying to do that with COVID-19, too by pushing "variants." There are thousands of variants out there, but you only hear about one or two. Ironically, the vaccines are supposed to cover all these variants, but "might not" cover any new variants... </p><p>Are people willing to get 2 booster shots every year (or 3...or 4) for the rest of their lives when each shot puts their lives at risk? Keep in mind that unlike smallpox and polio, COVID-19 has MANY animal vectors who can get and give it: in other words, we can NEVER eradicate it. </p><p>On the other hand, the people who get it naturally have immunity for at least a year and most research is saying they think it will be lasting. Granted, this research was not done on people who got it after being vaccinated. </p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-3456410223768977732021-07-08T17:25:00.000-07:002021-07-08T17:25:23.423-07:00Perfect Study to Show Pro-Mask Bias<p> <a href="https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/5/e002794.full.pdf" target="_blank">This study </a>was perfectly written to show a pro-mask point of view. </p><p>First and foremost, it is not a randomized controlled trial but rather an after-the-fact, what-do-you remember about your illness study. The researchers conclude, however, that the study (done on only 124 households) confirms that wearing masks will stop COVID-19 transmission and that transmission occurs in the first couple of days after symptom onset because all the primary subjects were hospitalized immediately as per China's policies. </p><p>"This study confirms that the highest risk of household
transmission is prior to symptom onset, but that precautionary NPIs, such as mask use...can prevent COVID-19 transmission during the pandemic."</p><p>Wait a minute... Look at this data published in the study:</p><p>Time interval from illness onset to medical
isolation (days):</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> Total<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> Families without<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> Families with</span></span></span><br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> secondary transmission<span> secondary transmission</span></span><br /></p><p>≤2 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>32 (25.8) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>26 (31.3) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span>6 (14.6) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>– Ref </p><p>>2 <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>92 (74.2) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>57 (68.7) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span>35 (85.4) <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>0.05 2.66 (1.00 to 7.12)</p><p>So, according to their own data 85.4% of the families that caught COVID-19 from a loved one in their homes had that same loved one in their homes for MORE THAN 2 DAYS. How does that mean you are most likely to get it in the first two days or before symptoms appear? </p><p>Now, these researchers were not asking people after the fact if they had caught COVID-19 from the primary case. Nor were they testing everyone in the family to see if they had really gotten COVID-19 from the person during the first two weeks when they could have caught it. No. Instead, a family member had to not only catch COVID-19 from the primary case, but then that person had to have symptoms severe enough that they went to the hospital, have a test confirming it, and where they would then be quarantined for who knows how long. Now, lets say you are family and Dad comes home sick from work with COVID-19. He goes to the hospital and is put there for a minimum of 2 weeks (and probably longer since this was in the first months of the pandemic when everyone thought you could get it for two months afterward). Jr. gets COVID-19 from dad, but at 10 years old he has no symptoms and nobody knows because they never test him. Mom also gets COVID-19 from dad, but she only has minor symptoms and she is already under forced quarantine because dad had it. As a mother, do you (a) go to the hospital (where you will be quarantined) and try to find someone else to watch your son who is supposed to be quarantined from everyone because of his exposure or (b) suck it up and take care of your son and household? Grandma gets COVID-19, but she doesn't have it that badly and doesn't want to go to the hospital, so she spends time in her room using old-school traditional medicine. Voila, no secondary transmission in that family. </p><p>Now, lets remember, the WHO tested 70,000 people in the beginning of this and confirmed that the transmission rate among household members was about 80%. This study of 124 families says household transmission is only 23%!!! Wow. There were 26 families that did not have secondary transmission and never wore masks. There were 21 families with secondary transmission that never wore masks. So, 47 families never wore masks and 55% of those families did not have secondary transmission as defined by the study's perimeters. Either WHO and their huge study were wrong or this study is wrong. Considering most of the data in this study did not have statistical significance, I think I will go with WHO.</p><p>But let's look at the real mask data they are promoting (as well as the 100+ news agencies that picked this up). </p><p>No of family members wearing mask at home
before primary case’s illness onset date (median
(IQR))</p><p> <span> </span><span> </span> Total Families without Families with<br /></p><p> secondary transmission secondary transmission</p><p>None <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>31 (25.6) 27 (33.3) 4 (10.0) – Ref </p><p>One or more <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>90 (74.4) <span> </span>54 (66.7) 36 (90.0) 0.009 0.22 (0.07 to 0.69)</p><p>There is a lot wrong with this data. My first impression was that it is almost identical to the data above concerning how long it took to get into the hospital quarantine. Were the same families that were not wearing masks prior to the onset of the disease also waiting to go to the hospital? If that is true that could invalidate all the data--but this similarity is not mentioned or explained anywhere in the text. Second, why are only 121 of the 124 families recorded here? Third, and this is the most interesting: why isn't the data broken down into "none" "some" and "all"? Or better yet, "all" and "none or not everyone wore a mask"? What the authors are trying to say and what they have statistically proven is that only one person in your family has to wear a mask at all times and the entire family will be safe. If Grandma wears a mask, no one will get COVID-19 according to the way this data is set up and analyzed. Ironically, the authors did divide the categories into "none" "some" "all" for mask use after the illness onset. No reason was given for combining the two categories. This is concerning since one person wearing a mask in a household of four would have questionable effect on disease transmission. It could be argued if the person was the primary case or the only caregiver for the primary case prior to hospital admission, there may be some benefit, but the problem with that scenario is that this statistic is covering mask use <b>before</b> the primary case had symptoms. It is highly unlikely the only person wearing a mask would fall into these two categories. Further, it would be impossible to replicate these results if that happened. </p><p>In the yellow journalism that has encompassed the peer-review process, this paper has been cited again and again as well as in news stories. </p><p><br /></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-76599576003522604952021-04-10T10:12:00.003-07:002021-04-10T10:12:55.102-07:00<p>Here is some information with citations you can share if you want to know the truth about Dr. Fauci and his relationship with big pharma: in the 1980s, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234216/">Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV</a>. This shocked the FDA because they knew AZT had failed as a cancer treatment. The company that makes AZT stopped trials after 17 weeks because they stated it would be "unethical" to deny it to the placebo group. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/rise-and-fall-azt-it-was-drug-had-work-it-brought-hope-people-hiv-and-aids-and-millions-company-developed-it-it-had-work-there-was-nothing-else-many-who-used-azt-it-didn-t-2320491.html">AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick</a>, die sooner, and it accelerated HIV mutations into resistant strains. Currently, AZT is not recommended as a sole treatment for HIV, and when used in combination with other drugs 50% of the people who start it have to be pulled off it. Unfortunately, many of the people with HIV who suffered because they took AZT that had been recommended for general use by Dr. Fauci (instead of last resort emergency use as approved by the FDA) are now dead. Big pharma charge $8000 per month to every person who took AZT during its height. </p><p>After that, Dr. Fauci legally <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545012/">took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies </a>for developing and getting Interleukin-2 approved as another HIV drug. Fauci claimed he felt uncomfortable about taking the kickbacks and "donated them to charity." Still, despite Fauci's research showing Interleukin-2 helped fight HIV, four years later independent research showed Interleukin-2 was ineffective and detrimental to HIV patients because it <a href="https://www.thebodypro.com/article/research-shows-treating-hiv-aids-interleukin-2-ineffective">weakened immune cells and made the ineffective</a>. </p><p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113383825463714813">Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research</a>. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the B<a href="https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Ideas/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2003/01/Grand-Challenges-in-Global-Health#:~:text=Media%20Center-,%24200%20Million%20Grant%20to%20Accelerate%20Research,Grand%20Challenges%22%20in%20Global%20Health&text=DAVOS%2C%20Switzerland%20%2D%2D%20The%20Bill,Institutes%20of%20Health%20(NIH).">ill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID </a>which <a href="https://www.axios.com/moderna-nih-coronavirus-vaccine-ownership-agreements-22051c42-2dee-4b19-938d-099afd71f6a0.html">Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research</a>. <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/who-decides-when-vaccine-studies-are-done-internal-documents-show-fauci-plays-a-key-role">Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA</a> (and <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes">here</a>), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni">Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization </a>(before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. </p><p>During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," <a href="https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20190812/two-of-four-ebola-treatments-prove-effective-in-drc-trial">Dr. Fauci </a>pushed for <a href="https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/remdesivir-gs-5734-rapidly-progressing-study-pipeline">emergency use of Remdesivir</a>, again this drug was found to be <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31774950/">ineffective against Ebola after independent studies</a>. </p><p>Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-dr-anthony-fauci-worth-120000448.html">his net worth is apparently in the millions</a>. When he completely flipflopped on masks, no one questioned him despite the NAS stating there was no scientific evidence that masks prevented asymptomatic spread (and that it was highly unlikely they did). With his past history of promoting bad drugs and flipflopping suddenly, why hasn't he been investigated?</p><p>Further, just as with AZT, <a href="https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/04/what-the-public-didnt-hear-about-the-nih-remdesivir-trial/">Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment </a>and pushed it through emergency use. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7214279/">Independent studies</a> showed that people who took <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190303/">Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit </a>(however, Remdesivir patients suffered twice the number of side effects), were ignored. Further Remdesivir did not significantly reduce death rates or rates of serious disease even in the NIH funded study. When the W<a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments">HO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all</a>, WHO was attacked for not taking into account people who had been given the drug earlier. In fact, Fauci has criticized all studies that show Redmesivir is not clinically effective at treating COVID-19 and comes with serious side effects (as seen in the article above). </p><p>Although the past evidence is enough to raise question about Dr. Fauci's conduct, full research should be done, including his financial situation and how he has handled NIH funds and determined which companies get grants to perform research. At the least, the FDA should immediately cancel EUAs without independent research and full clinical trials because of the misinformation leading to deaths surrounding Dr. Fauci's previous research projects. </p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-18472757665166502032021-03-19T07:42:00.000-07:002021-03-19T07:42:20.641-07:00Antifa : Fascists Falsely Claiming to be Antifacist<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">I have been researching the links between the Weather Underground and Antifa because I believe they are very real. Due to bad evidence gathering practices of the FBI under Hoover (COINTELPRO), the leaders of this terrorist group were removed from the most wanted list and now teach in our colleges. Their final announcement to the small groups of cells that didn't know about the activities of other cells (similar to the way Antifa is run) was that they needed to go public so they could further their cause. Bill Ayers was a mentor to former President Obama. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">It is, of course, difficult to find any real evidence that links the two. Antifa could have simply adopted the organizational methods and ideologies of the Weather Underground. </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">I stumbled across <a href="https://dnews.com/opinion/his-view-a-look-at-antifa-and-days-of-rage/article_3c142f36-3c9b-58f3-b901-89a382157bd7.html">THIS</a> article that mentioned the similarities of both groups. The person who wrote this came across the same irony that I noticed:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Classically, fascism is defined in socio-economic terms. Curiously, the 1919 Fascist Manifesto’s political, social, military, and financial objectives read more like talking points from today’s Democratic Socialists’ platform. However, Bray (the Author of </span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook) </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">defines fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood.” The Antifa movement adapted “preexisting socialist, anarchist, and communist currents to a sudden need to react to the fascist menace” within Western capitalism. According to Antifa, you are a fascist if you are a conservative, independent, libertarian, a moderate Democrat, or simply anywhere to the right of Marx. Bray disregards the fact that it was the very people he labels fascists (capitalists, classical liberals, and conservatives) who stood up to and defeated the fascist regimes in World War II."</span></p><div class="tncms-region hidden-print" id="tncms-region-article_instory_middle" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"></div><div class="subscriber-only" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27px; margin: 0px 0px 24px;">The author notes that "Bray argues for the Antifa tactic of “no platforming” by using physical violence to deny fascists the opportunity to speak in public. A recent example is when radio commentator Ben Shapiro was canceled from speaking at Gonzaga University by the threat of Antifa violence. Gonzaga stated that it wasn’t Shapiro’s viewpoint that canceled the event but rather the fear of the protesters. Similarly, UC Berkeley canceled a speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos when 150 black bloc Antifa members started rampaging. Berkeley did allow Shapiro and conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus, but it cost the school $600,000 at each event for security to protect free speech from weapon-carrying Antifa thugs. I use Shapiro as a clear example of Antifa’s real goal. He is neither a fascist nor a white supremacist. He is a libertarian (capitalist) and practicing Orthodox Jew. But he has been labeled as a fascist because his words are offensive to radical ears."</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27px; margin: 0px 0px 24px;">Fascists, like Hitler, believe in silencing the opposition. They hate free speech and dissenting opinions. This is probably because they are not smart enough to use words to overcome the objections of the opposition and logic would have you siding against them. That a former President allowed this group to rise and that Democrats allowed them to destroy their cities, should have us greatly concerned. Not because of the violence and madness they have created worldwide, but more because of the human rights violations, such as destroying the ability of the other side to speak, which have arisen. </p></div>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-16964577728503865352021-03-18T05:24:00.001-07:002021-03-18T05:24:30.741-07:00Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety<p> Yes, previously when <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1851071/?log$=activity" target="_blank">mRNA vaccines were given to animal</a>s,<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7554980/" target="_blank"> they developed blood clots</a> from the vaccines. Since none of the new vaccines, including the ones with adenovirus instead of mRNA, have been tested for safety and effectiveness in a random control trial that produced significant results, no one should believe they are getting a safe vaccine. Nor should anyone believe they are getting a well-tested, effective vaccine. Effectiveness could only be determined if during the trials 30,000 people had come down with COVID-19 (vaccinated + placebo groups). Fewer than 180 came down with it. Further, trials were stopped one week after people received their second shots. Moderna specifically stated that it was going to stop all placebo groups as soon as it got FDA approval. This destroys the experiment and any data that may now come from it and is one of t<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340084/?log$=activity" target="_blank">he worst kinds of vaccine fraud</a>. </p><p>So, when my friend's neighbor dies of a blood clot after getting the vaccine, my eyebrow raises. When European countries stop vaccines because of blood clots, I take notice. This fits with what we know about mRNA vaccines and it fits with a push to "get everyone vaccinated ASAP." Big guys have a lot of money invested in these vaccines, and with Facebook squelching all reports of adverse effects and VAERS - the nations data gathering system for vaccine side effects- not being talked about, it seems like they are trying to make as much as they can before the house of cards finishes collapsing.</p><p>The house of cards has already started to fall. Norway detected an unusual number of people who died from the vaccine. The EU has noted a spike in blood clots. The US noticed an uptick in allergic reactions and the FDA warned the vaccine makers about it. Still we plod on-- VACCINATE! VACCINATE! VACCINATE!</p><p>I have had a lot of vaccines in my life. I have never had my entire arm swell up nor have I had to miss a day of work because of them... granted the vaccines I have had spent decades being researched for safety and effectiveness before they were released. </p><p>In the US, you cannot sue a vaccine maker, but you can be reimbursed for medical expenses by the US government if you have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The problem is that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental." They are not FDA approved--nor have they undergone the necessary trials to become FDA approved. Why would they need to? They were given emergency use status and the companies not only have no liability for their products but also are being promoted everywhere using Nazi propaganda techniques. They will never get FDA approval because they are neither safe nor effective. If they were safe and effective they would not have stopped the trials prior to achieving significant results that would have given them FDA approval. </p><p>It is one thing to have an experimental vaccine available for those in the population who wish to take it or participate in the experiment. It is quite another to force an experimental vaccine on everyone in the World. So far, it hasn't been forced on anyone. But the vaccination passports in development should scare us all. There are many diseases more deadly than COVID-19--why haven't we had passports for any of those? Finish testing the vaccine and have significant results. THEN countries can decide if they want to force it on people and provide them with "Vaccine passports."</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-77919041184831488112021-03-01T06:38:00.001-08:002021-03-01T06:38:02.450-08:00Time to Break up the Monopoly<p> <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-to-restore-news-for-australian-users/" target="_blank">This</a> article should scare people. Facebook has forced the government of Australia to back down (and not the other way around). When a company can directly control legislation, there is a problem. </p><p>The biggest problem is that Facebook has grown too big and no government will now stand up to it because it can block government content, news content, and any user content it wants to block. That means we, the people, are the only ones left to stop them.</p><p>This shouldn't be difficult, but unfortunately, Facebook has designed and perfected its platform in such a way that it has not only become addictive, but also has become the sole mediator of what information you receive. They have done this to the point that now they can fill your feed with garbage advertising and you still will scroll through it. </p><p>So, it is time, we leave Facebook. Ideally, the majority of the world would quit in protest, but I have learned that ideals don't work for most. Even I would have a problem completely cutting it, and I frequently take week-long or month long breaks from it. So, the solution I propose is branching out. Dedicate one day of your week to exploring other social networks and forbid yourself from getting on FB for that one day. </p><p>If enough people migrate some of their time from FB, FB will feel it. In addition, you might find another network you like better than FB. In addition to <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/" target="_blank">Pinterest</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/" target="_blank">Goodreads</a>, and <a href="https://www.blogger.com/" target="_blank">Blogger</a> (which I already use), here are some options I am planning to try: <a href="https://wt.social/" target="_blank">WT Social</a>, <a href="https://parler.com/auth/access" target="_blank">Parler</a>, <a href="https://joinmastodon.org/" target="_blank">Mastodon</a>, <a href="https://mewe.com/" target="_blank">MeWe</a>, <a href="https://ello.co/" target="_blank">Ello</a>, <a href="https://steemit.com/" target="_blank">Steemit</a>, and <a href="https://diasporafoundation.org/" target="_blank">Diaspora</a>. </p><p><br /></p><p>I might also try <a href="https://vk.com/" target="_blank">VK</a>, but I don't like that the Russian Government is now controlling it in the same way that I don't like how Facebook is being controlled by American politics and Zuckerberg's greed. For the same reason, a site from China like <a href="https://weibo.com/" target="_blank">Sina Weibo</a> is not appealing (in addition to the fact I have to use Google to translate the pages since my Chinese character recognition is minimal). I also don't like <a href="https://discord.com/" target="_blank">Discord</a> because it limits your content only to those in your group and it is a very different medium than FB. </p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-54502557217833260272021-02-25T23:35:00.022-08:002021-02-25T23:35:00.125-08:00Now That We Know Bill Gates' Virtual Learning Fails Can We Stop Listening to This Guy?<p> Bill Gates likes to think he is a genius and has revolutionary ideas on every subject from climate control to medicine to education. For years, those the subject of his generosity have seen it as a double edged sword--money given to them but which cannot be used to make things better because it can only be used to do what Bill Gates wants. What Bill Gates wants is rarely beneficial. </p><p>Bill Gates was raised in one of those privileged environments where his parents only accepted winning. As might be expected, this created a man who will win--even if he must cheat to do it.</p><p>So far, the media has treated Bill as if he is a genius who knows everything about everything. Bill's house of cards is collapsing, but it is doubtful that he will be the one blamed for his failures. </p><p>Consider virtual learning. Remember, Bill had made a heavy investment in this. Despite his previous New York educational failures, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/05/06/cuomo-questions-why-school-buildings-still-exist-says-new-york-will-work-with-bill-gates-reimagine-education/" target="_blank">Cuomo turned to him to revolutionize Virtual Learning</a>, believing as Bill Gates preached, that in-class learning was unnecessary. </p><p>Now, let's keep in mind that Bill Gates has never been overly fond of education and dropped out of Harvard after his second year. Bill Gates and Joe Biden also have one major thing in common--neither of them seem to care that plagiarism is illegal. Both of them have also managed to plagiarize without being panned for it. <a href="https://www.theregister.com/2012/08/07/kildall_unforensic_ieee_smear/" target="_blank">Bill Gates stole the API from CP/M to make MSDOS</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html" target="_blank">Biden plagiarized his schoolwork</a> among other things.</p><p>Well, <a href="https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/jan/24/distance-learning-has-many-clark-county-students-not-making-the-grade/" target="_blank">as children have failed Bill Gates' Virtual Experiment</a> and as he grew richer from their failure, we should immediately recognize him for the parasite he is and ignore anything else he tells us we should spend our money on--since he is not an unbiased academic but rather a person who will collect big bucks when we take his advice. However, since the news is not mentioning him in any of the articles that I have seen on the failure of his educational idea, I doubt people will make the connection that he was behind it on their own.</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-66523432689030338782021-02-19T08:03:00.004-08:002021-02-22T23:35:40.909-08:00The COVID-19 Vaccine is neither safe nor has it been "proven" to be 95% effective after the second shot.<p> The news, as it has been doing since the beginning of COVID-19, is not being held accountable for its misleading headlines. </p><p>I have gotten many vaccinations in my lifetime. However, I have never had to miss a day of school or work because of it. Entire <a href="https://www.syracuse.com/schools/2021/02/central-ny-school-district-closes-after-many-staff-sick-with-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html" target="_blank">schools are closing down</a> because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work.<a href="https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/health-officials-recommend-work-forces-stagger-employee-vaccinations-when-available/2394456/" target="_blank"> Hospitals are rotating </a>who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects. </p><p>In the trials, 1 in 10 people had serious side effects from the vaccine after receiving the second shot. These were not the standard "mild" flu-like symptoms, these were serious issues affecting major organs. The younger the person, the more likely these side effects were. </p><p>At last check, 12,000 adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported. For comparison, 48,000 were reported across all the vaccines given in 2017 for the entire year. In one month, the COVID-19 vaccine alone has reached 1/4 that. More disturbing, about 2,000 of these adverse events were deaths. </p><p>Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219820314112?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">this paper</a>), but even the number of allergic reactions is greatly increased. Normally, across all vaccines, 1.31 people out of 1 million people develop an allergic reaction. 92 people per 1 million have an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. </p><p>Further, <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037" target="_blank">we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death</a>. The vaccine could even increase death rates. If it causes deaths without preventing deaths from COVID-19, it should not be used. The studies that should have been done for effectiveness, have not been done. According to the vaccine makers, this is because it would have required a study on 30,000 people. They did the study on 125 people to save time. Shame on them. </p><p>Further, there are (at last count) 4000 variations of COVID-19 that have already been "discovered." About 1000 of these exist in the United States. Are you going to take 4000 vaccinations that cause you to miss two days of work? </p><p>So, why does the news say it is "95%" effective? Well, because 95% of the people who receive the second dose will develop antibodies <i>to the vaccine</i> but this is not an antibody to COVID-19. The vaccine itself contains a man-made virus that is not COVID-19. It also <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nanoparticles-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-rare-allergic-reactions" target="_blank">contains a chemical</a> that has never been used in shots before and is suspected of causing severe allergic reactions. </p><p>We have no idea how long antibodies to the vaccine lasts, even if it is effective against COVID-19. If it is anything like previous mRNA vaccines, you will be covered for less than 6 months. Are you willing to take 4000 vaccines every 6 months to prevent a disease that kills less than 3% of the people who get it, when the vaccine itself kills people--especially when each vaccine can cause you to take 1-2 days off work because of their "mild" side effects? </p><p>The vaccines are dangerous and might not be effective, just as wearing masks and closing schools and businesses is dangerous and might not be effective. The problem is that vaccines could cause deaths two years later--so we have no clue just how dangerous this one could be without proper testing. Forcing or requiring anyone to get one is immoral. </p><p>The real questions are: How long is the news going cover for big pharma COVID-19 vaccine makers? How long are people going to to look the other way? Will the news media companies be held accountable for their lies? </p><p>Shame on Trump for pushing for a vaccine in one year--it did not save his Presidency because the news refused to report on it prior to the election. Shame on the Dr. Fauci, for pushing everyone to get a vaccine, while acknowledging it will not protect anyone. </p><p>If you choose to get vaccinated, that is your choice. Just make the choice understanding the vaccine has serious side effects and may not protect you or anyone else from COVID-19.</p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4421675368637618944.post-87698594629976255132020-12-14T06:53:00.004-08:002020-12-14T06:53:42.522-08:00CDC Says Nasal Swabs Accurate But Serology Tests Are Only Accurate for Vaccine Testing<p><span style="font-family: georgia;">COVID-19 PCR Nasal swab tests are considered accurate because of a <a href="https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext">paper published in January 2020</a>. Two of the lead authors on this paper work for corporations (one is CEO of <a href="https://www.tib-molbiol.com/">Tib Miobiol </a>and the other works for <a href="https://genexpress.cl/">GeneX-press</a>) that produce PCR products--including those for COVID-19. Now, last I checked a conflict of interest like this would have made the paper highly suspect, but Eurosurveillance, which claims it can peer review papers and "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px;"><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20201214132232/https://www.eurosurveillance.org/for-authors">publication can be arranged within hours of submission</a>" did just that and rapidly published this paper. The WHO has relied on this paper as the basis for is recommendation of RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis. That's right, WHO and the CDC are relying on a paper partially authored by the CEO of a PCR primer company to determine the accuracy of RT-PCR tests and to promote them as the standard for COVID-19 testing. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia;"><span style="background-color: white;">Never mind that people <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447437/">can test positive for 90+ days </a>after getting over COVID-19. Never mind that people who have had the virus can have several negative tests in a row (see <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7047852/">here</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7129213/">here</a>) and then have even more positive tests without being sick. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">But lets talk also about why the CDC says serology tests are "inaccurate" when these tests <a href="https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/roche-to-supply-antibody-tests-to-moderna-s-covid-19-vaccine-trial">are being used</a> (and have been used for decades) to determine vaccine effectiveness. I find it convenient that these tests suddenly became "inaccurate" after serology studies showed millions of humans were already infected with COVID-19 asymptomatically. The CDC believes these are false positives although false negatives are more likely because of the wait time before antibodies are produced. Another problem is the smallpox issue. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">Smallpox did not require a vaccine made from smallpox. Antibodies to cowpox could also effectively prevent the disease (at least that is what the told everyone). Now, in 1980, WHO declared smallpox eradicated and put the spotlight on vaccination as the method of eradication, while also admitting other policies put in place were probably more important. Granted, since everyone was actually vaccinated with cowpox one has to wonder why cowpox was not eradicated (granted they didn't use the "extra policies" to work on eradicating that)... and people vaccinated for smallpox <a href="https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/2/17-1433_article">managed to acquire cowpox afterward</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">I also find it interesting that there are only about <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7154514/">380 nucleotide differences</a> between SARS and "SARS-2" a.k.a. the virus that causes COVID-19. That means they are about 99% similar. It also means that if SARS had only previously been found in animals, lets say dogs, and COVID-19 appeared in humans, dogs would have been considered the animal that gave the virus to humans. More importantly, these nucleotide differences translate almost the same proteins. Consider apes and humans who are about <a href="https://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full">96% genetically</a> similar, but only share about <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15716009/">20% of the same proteins</a> that that "same" DNA produces. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia;">The short of the matter is that just as smallpox had a "major" and "minor" version with one being deadly and the other not so much, SARS apparently has a major and minor (COVID-19) version. Just as smallpox required more than a vaccine to control it (and didn't require lockdowns or masks), COVID-19 will require more to control it than a vaccine--primarily it will require getting rid of these 14th century disease control methods and coming back to the 21st century, where pandemics should not be feared because of our centuries of medical knowledge.</span></p>Jennifer Reinoehlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06700022258098844636noreply@blogger.com0