The President Doesn't Have a "Right of Visit and Search"

 The "right of visit and search" that President Trump is declaring he has to search innocent vessels is a right only extended during a war. The U.S. Congress is the only American entity that can declare war on a nation, and it has not declared war on Iran. It could be argued NATO also has this right, but most of the NATO countries do not support a war with Iran. Any visiting and searching of vessels that our Navy does will be done illegally. Oh, and although pirate ships also fall under this right, if we board any ship and it isn't a pirate ship, we have to make compensation to that ships owners and nation.

Some Americans have jumped on the "no nuclear enrichment for Iran" without apparently realizing that this would mean Iran can't use nuclear power. It would also mean Iran could not establish data centers, among other things--but presumably if they did this they would be more intelligent and limit theirs, unlike the U.S., which has 4000+ (no other country has 1/10 that). 

When will other countries realize that this is all about money and stock manipulation (see my other post). Leaders like Netanyahu and Trump, who have no hope of being re-elected are grasping at straws and hoping to at least make themselves a nice nest egg before they must permanently leave politics. The U.S., unfortunately, has no laws against our elected leaders dabbling in the stock market and doing insider trading--it's only those under them. 

The U.S. didn't want Russia to get nuclear bombs either. Our leaders told us it would be the end of the world because those crazy Russians would kill us. Thus, the decades long Cold War. 

Ironically, of the nine countries who have nuclear bombs, the United States is the only one to use one and they some how have justified the fact that they only used it on civilian populations who were completely unsuspecting and who had no bomb warnings or shelters that could protect them. This is similar to how we convinced Americans that it was a great thing we were able to destroy an Iranian ship--their best ship, without expanding on the fact that the only reason that ship was there was because it was participating in war games with the United States and was there under a peace treaty. No, we shot them in the back as soon as they were heading home, while they were completely unsuspecting. We are just like Epstein--we play a simple war game and make other countries think we're just a friendly country before screwing them. 

In actuality, the only thing Russia getting nuclear weapons did was stop us from using them again. Granted, with our trigger happy President and his henchman Hegseth, we may start bombing everyone again. We are already only hurting civilians in Iran, just as Israel is primarily targeting civilians in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is absolutely correct in that the world has forgotten the history of WWII. Now, just as then, Hitler was allowed to do what he wanted and took over SEVERAL countries before the rest of the world even told him to stop!! That is exactly what Israel and the United States are doing while everyone looks the other way. 

America--No Longer a Democratic Republic

The Founding Fathers of the United States set up a clear system of checks and balances between Congress, the Courts, and the President. However, since that start, we have been eroding that balance. At first, it was the switch from senators being elected by state legislature to being directly elected. By the early 1900s, it was further eroded by excluding or making it nearly impossible for third parties and independents to get on state ballots. Since NATO, Congress has slowly given up its sole right to declare war and has looked the other way as presidents executive ordered their way around things. 

In the past ten years, Americans have seen government supported online censorship and AI-algorithms that intentionally censor certain topics or create a soundbox where people only see information they support pushed back at them--making them more likely to believe false theories as they see them promoted over and over again. 

I in no way shape or form believe Trump is like Hitler, but he certainly seems to be trying for that image right now. There are a few similarities. When Hitler invaded Austria, the rest of the world looked the other way and claimed Austria wanted it. (Obviously,  The Story of the Trapp Family Singers had not been published, but one would think governments might have realized no country in the history of the world has ever been like, "Oh-oh-oh!! Colonize me!! Please! Please! Please!" It took several countries before the rest of the world was like, "Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't let him go unchecked like that." Now, we are invading many countries and setting up puppet governments. This is no different than colonizing them.

The United States has also been selling its balanced government to its intelligence agencies--as have most countries. If you think about it, no agency should ever be doing something so secret that its country's leaders are not told about it, but that is what our intelligence agencies have been doing for over half a century. I am not talking about military intelligence, which I believe is very important, but this is general intelligence operating outside the military. U.S. agencies were staffed with Nazi's who were basically given pardons for their war crimes if they came and worked for our government--including in research, teaching, and intelligence areas. What did these people who apparently had no problem acting outside the laws do? Well, one of the main jobs of our intelligence agencies have been to take over other countries and interfere in their elections--all in the name of "democracy." The also form alliances and share information with the intelligence agencies of other nations. 

Now, congress has become obsolete. The people who have been in are apparently too old and too tired to care that Trump will spend $1 trillion every three months just to invade and put a puppet government in Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. The puppet government in Ecuador has already been there for a while. Hegseth talks about the Monroe Doctrine while ignoring that we can't have troops around the world, start a war with Iran, taunt China in its own waters and train troops for Ukraine if we are following the Monroe Doctrine. He isn't practicing the Monroe Doctrine--he's empire building, which is in complete opposition to the Monroe Doctrine.

While Trump lets Hegseth do whatever he wants, Congress lets Trump do whatever he wants. Why? I think they believe they can escape the American wrath by pushing it all on Trump. But a Congress that ignores Trump is a Congress that supports him. A Congress that refuses to act when the people of the United States want them to act is a useless instrument.

In my opinion, Trump is more like Chairman Mao. He has surrounded himself with his own soundbox that tells him what he wants to hear. But when the U.S. Navy has to attack a ship that was granted protection to participate in a military display with the United States by India, that doesn't show a strong military. That shows a military that is so broken and defunct it can only attack dirty or risk losing. If that ship had been aware it was not protected, we would not have murdered the people on it so easily. In fact, as much as I am glad we aren't putting boots on the ground, not doing so shows how afraid our leadership is that it will get its butt kicked.

Will the American people care enough to vote for and run as independents to get these good-ol'-boys out and get real people in? I hope so, but it might be too late. Terrorists have struck American soil before, and Iran is reportedly the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, but our leaders think attacking their country and taking out their leaders is fair game. This time, however, we are working with an underpaid military made up of mostly new rejects so they can meet their recruiting goals. It is spread across the world and the U.S., and we just took out a beloved religious leader. 

The Noble committee showed wisdom beyond Trump's bluffs about ending wars (that actually are still going on). Instead of going down as the President of Peace, he will go down in history as the President who was responsible for World War III while Congress looked the other way. 

A New Lancet Study that Failed to Show Its Results Weren't Random Says Tylenol Isn't Linked to Brain Damage

News stations have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming 40 studies were reviewed in this Lancet paper that makes me realize just how lax and/or bought-out the Lancet is. The problem is that they only included 17 of those studies in the meta-analysis. Digging deeper, we find they didn't get statistical significance with p-values over 0.4 (they should be below 0.05). Why was this study published? This isn't a randomized controlled trial that was simply too small to be significant. No, this was a literature search. The entire purpose of meta-analyses is to combine small studies to achieve statistical significance. They failed. Further, they used estimated estimates to help shape their data and computer AI to model the results. 

If you really want to know the truth, scientists have known for a long time that Tylenol/ acetaminophen/ paracetamol causes brain damage in kids just as it causes liver damage in adults: 

Acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children: no valid rationale for controversy

This study is from 2023, before politics were attached to it.

News agencies should be ashamed of themselves

Not Surprising: Major News Agencies Are Lying About the CPI and Tariffs

 So, CPI is not a real number anyway. How it is calculated constantly gets "adjusted." For example, they negate price increases because the "new" version is "better" so "there wasn't really any inflation." (Think about how your car now comes with a standard radio and power windows, so since it is "better" the price increase since the 1950s isn't really a price increase and won't go into CPI.) 

And then there is the whack way they calculate how much inflation there is. For example. Let's say you bought a house for $112,500 last year and a "similar" house costs $121,500 this year. Normal people would simply see how much that increased: (112500/121500) * 100= 9.3% 

That isn't, as you might have guessed, how the government does it. They use this math problem, which makes little sense to me but lowers the numbers nicely: ((121500-112500)/112500) * 100= 8% Voila! Less inflation despite the truth. 

But, this month, the news agencies decided to flat out lie in their headlines about what the report says to push their anti-tariff agenda: 

Here’s how Trump’s tariffs could be impacting prices for US consumers (CNN)

U.S Inflation Accelerated in June as Trump's Tariff's Pushed Up Prices  (NY Times)

US consumer prices rise in June as tariff pass-through begins (Reuters)

First, let's clear things up--the new tariffs do not go into effect until August 1. That's right--these news agencies, which all know this, are blaming inflation for June on something that will not happen until August. They are picking small pieces of the inflation breakdown to highlight in their report while ignoring or attempting to paint others in a more favorable light. 

Second, let's look at the actual report on the BLS website. It states "The index for shelter rose 0.2 percent in June and was the primary factor in the all items monthly increase." Hmm, last I checked Americans did not import shelter from other nations. Generally, we don't live in yurts, tents, or other importable shelter types. I am pretty sure RVs and van conversions are counted as "vehicles" and not shelter despite there ability to be used as such. 

The highest 3 year-over-year increases are from shelter, restaurants/food away from home, and utilities (electric and gas). Along with what I said above, I doubt anyone is flying to China and having their takeout imported. Now, we do import utility gas, but we also export utility gas (natural gas/propane) so it seems to me, if it were becoming more expensive to import it, we would just stop exporting so much. 

There is so much garbage the news can blame President Trump for--why are they making up false headlines to promote anti-tariff rhetoric?

The Abortion Sob Story--When Doctors Promote an Agenda by Encouraging Women to Have Abortions

 By now, everyone has probably heard of at least one woman who couldn't get an abortion and needed one because her baby had a fatal condition and would die soon after earth. The problem is that the conditions these babies have are not always fatal--therefore, the doctors in states where abortion has restrictions and who deliberately tell these women their child will "probably" die are not being good doctors. Any woman who is told by a doctor that her baby has a condition that will "probably" kill it but which does not qualify for fatal condition clauses in state laws should question the doctor.

I refused genetic testing for all five of my kids. There was no medical reason to conduct it in my opinion--if something is "found," I was told at the time there was nothing they can do about it to help the baby better survive. The sole purpose of genetic testing, to the best of my knowledge, is to encourage women who may give birth to a disabled child to have an abortion. The only other thing it can do is cause pregnant women to worry more--which is not good for the pregnancy. 

This is not the only story of a woman complaining that she had to leave her home state to get an abortion when she found out her baby had the almost always fatal Trisome 18. The problem is that like other stories I have heard where mothers are told their babies will die, these are almost old wives tales doctors are passing on. This woman, for example, lived to be at least 40 years old with Trisome 18. Doctors tell people their baby will "probably" not live past the first year, but 1 in 20 do. If you have an abortion, your baby will die immediately. Trisome 13 is another "fatal" syndrome. The oldest documented man alive was 31 years old. 

Then there is the Florida ad that is being banned by DeSantis. DeSantis is right: the ad is false based on what has been leaked about "Caroline" the Tampa woman in the ad. She was purportedly 20 weeks pregnant when she found out. Once again, doctors played on this woman's emotions and told her she would die and the baby would die if she did not have an immediate abortion. The last I checked, real medical scientists would never say something like this because no one can predict medical outcomes with 100% accuracy. That is the thing that was driven in to me and my father when he was undergoing cancer treatments. He died even without being pregnant. My grandma went through her treatments and lived--and is still alive.

Surgery and radiation are the main treatments for most brain cancers. 1 in 50 people need surgery during pregnancy, so this is a doable thing--although it is recommended to wait until 12 weeks. Her doctors apparently did not advise her of this. In the 1990s--i.e. 30 years ago, there wasn't the technology to pinpoint spots on the body like the head. Now there is. Radiation for cancer can be performed while a woman is pregnant. There are even some chemotherapy treatments that can be given after 14 weeks. Why were these doctors not telling her that at 20 weeks she could begin treatment while pregnant?

Finally, this baby was 20 weeks old. Old school rules that refuse to die state that a baby is "viable" at 22-24 weeks. What that means is that each hospital or government sets an arbitrary time between 22 and 24 weeks where they will attempt to save babies who are born. If the baby is earlier than that, they won't do anything to try to save it and basically will watch it die if it was born alive. This is solely a cost measure that was established to help deal with the ethics of letting a needy baby die. Premature babies--especially this early--cost a lot of health care services. However, AIDS patients cost $32,000 per month for their AIDS medication alone and are susceptible to diseases that do not effect people without it. Are we just going to let AIDS patients die because their care is expensive? 

Doctors justify allowing premature babies to die by saying the baby probably would have died anyway. The problem is (as the study above says) that when all babies who are alive at the start of labor are given survival care after birth (as is the law in Japan), 60% survive. 

Further, because age is sometimes not accurately predicted, many hospitals instead used weight averages. The hospital where I did an internship in the 1990s set it at 900g. (Don't quote me on that exact number--its been 30 years!) So, if your baby was born at 20 weeks, and it was struggling, they would immediately put it on a scale and see if it was heavy enough. If it met the weight criteria, the doctors would work to save it and even resuscitate it if necessary. Because the weighing was done in a hurry, a few "light" babies were worked on--and survived. 

These arbitrary "viability" numbers are so wrong in our medical world today. Babies as young as 19 weeks have survived and are fine. Babies as light as 212 g have survived and are still alive and doing fine. It is crazy that our doctors tell pregnant women they should have an abortion, instead of just letting them give early birth. 

Now, if "Caroline" had been diagnosed with terminal cancer at 8 weeks instead of 20, then of course she should have been given the option--have an abortion, undergo treatment, and extend your life by possibly a few years or stall treatment, potentially die within the year (leaving your daughter and baby motherless), and have the baby (she might have had to go on life support the last trimester to continue allowing the baby to grow if the late treatment did not slow its progression). The latter would come with the extremely rare risk that the cancer could spread to the baby, but if they noticed the cancer metastasizing, they could have made the decision about inducing labor early. Instead, the doctors pushed a political agenda, telling her she would die and her baby would die no matter what if she did not get an abortion--at least this is what she says. 

Either the doctors lied to her or she is lying to us. Either way, DeSantis should stop it. I mean, I couldn't even make a post on Facebook during COVID that cited the CDC, FDA, and academic papers supporting my conclusion and was against mask mandates. This lady shouldn't be allowed to give out bad health information either. 

Ukraine Is "Keeping" the Area They Took in Russia

 Sometimes the news is just ridiculous. It plays upon the ignorance of the American people. Zelenski is apparently going to hold the land they "took" from Russia. 

Now, if you have been following me, you know that I think the whole "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is bunk. Ethnic Russians living in Ukraine have been treated horribly for quite some time (and Ukrainians living in Russian controlled areas of Ukraine were also treated horribly). In 2014, there was a coup created by the U.S. and President Biden's unemployable son, who had been dishonorably discharged from the military for doing drugs, was given a job he didn't qualify for as a result. Russian-Ukrainians were treated pretty awful after the coup we created so millions fled into Russia and Amnesty International (which is not bought out by billionaires unlike Human Rights Watch and other bunk "rights investigators") reported on it. 

But now, we have Russia, which was ticked off at having millions of people begging for help flooding into its borders, "invading" Ukraine. To accept this we have to ignore, of course, all the rules and treaties that Ukraine and the West had broken and the human rights violations that we were ignoring along with other things, but if we do accept that and close a blind eye to what was really going on, let's take a look at this and the current Ukrainian "occupation" of Russia in perspective. 

First, Russia advanced all the way to Kyiv, took out key infrastructure and then moved back to exactly where it said it would--after allowing ethnic Russians the opportunity to flee. Russia then pulled back to about where it said it would pull back to, and the West dumped billions of dollars into Ukraine to fight Russia. Ukraine advanced and won some ground. Now, Russia is advancing and Ukraine decided to take Russia. 

In perspective: Russia is about twice the size of the USA. Ukraine is slightly smaller than Texas. The area that Russia held (and is now increasing to the lines it wants to hold) is a little bigger than Maryland. The area Ukraine took is either half the size or about the size of Rhode Island. Now, I am sure Rhode Island would be pretty upset if Ukraine took them over, but in the grand scheme of things, if we were taking a state the size of Maryland away from Canada or Mexico, would it really make us stop? (especially since the Russians were somehow able to evacuate most of the area)

Now, I got it, Ukraine is such a bastion of democracy that the USA is going probably have to start taking lessons. I mean we already have some government censorship of individuals through social media and Amazon, so it will be a small step when only government sponsored media is allowed to continue in order to save us from "disinformation" while all other media is shut down. We already have 20,000 people with exactly the same name and birthdate as 20,000 other people (a statistical impossibility) voting in Arizona and we were happy with our lockdowns, so it will be an easy step to stop elections as they have already done in Ukraine. And then we will just have to ban the Christian church like Ukraine did when it banned the Russian Orthodox Church, so we can be a real bastion of democracy just like them.  

I get it. I grew up in the 1980s watching MacGyver and waiting for the USSR to drop a nuke on us. But Russia isn't the USSR, and there are too many pieces of this story that the news is leaving out.

The Problem with Sgt Karl Wolfe's Alien Testimony

There 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. 

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

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. 

(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. 

(3) There is no such thing as a "crypto" security clearance. This is garbage. 

(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. 

(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. 

(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. 

(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.

(8) They used 70mm not 35mm film (like Mr. Wolfe says) on these images. 35 mm wouldn't have gotten the needed detail. 

(9) He says that he knew the information was top secret--but thought it would be on the news some time soon. 

(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. 

(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?

(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 technician. 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." 

(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. 

(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. 

(15) Your security clearance expiring does not mean you can now share whatever you were told not to share.

(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." 

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. 

Crucifying a Conservative Black Man--Just in Time for Easter

 Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, is being crucified in the news this week 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 the judicial code 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.

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) performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward--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.

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 put into his position directly by the Democratic Party. That's right, in New York, home of Tammany Hall--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, 65,000 criminal cases were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this? 

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? 

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. 

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?

DON'T Say Their Name

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

After Years of Being Lied to About Covid-19, The Public Now Jumps on Board with New Ukraine Lies

 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? Except they aren't dead. By why quibble over words? After all, Ukraine will say one thing and then say the exact opposite without blinking an eye.

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? 

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?

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? 

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? 

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.

Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are Prohibited

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible 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.

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. 

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.

President Biden Apparently Doesn't Know the Definition of "Total Unanimity"

 Several news agencies report that NATO is completely in agreement with our choice to invade: SEe for example, Fox, the Hill. Really? "Unanimity" means "agreement by all people involved." Croatia is in NATO. It's president has said that if the United States goes to war with Russia over Ukraine, Croatia will drop out of NATO. 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 United States as the aggressor here. 

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 billions into equipping and training our Ukrainian 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 was given a cushy job in Ukraine because he was the vice-president's son. 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 bragged about doing so on television. 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 half a billion dollars! 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. 

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, they were already questioning the alliance. The real question is are Americans willing to sacrifice their children to the war effort? Consider the fact we already have American troops on the ground "training" Ukrainian military--I don't think the current Administration cares what Americans, or any other European nation, wants. 

The worst thing is that the Pentagon is not filled with time-tested military generals. No, it is filled with defense contractors all set to make money off any war. These are the people telling us we have to go to war with Russia... 

More Bad "Science"

 NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19. 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%. 

Then I stumbled across this gem published by the CDC. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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... 

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. 

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. 

Perfect Study to Show Pro-Mask Bias

 This study was perfectly written to show a pro-mask point of view. 

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. 

"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."

Wait a minute... Look at this data published in the study:

Time interval from illness onset to medical isolation (days):

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

≤2                             32 (25.8)             26 (31.3)                             6 (14.6)           – Ref 

>2                             92 (74.2)              57 (68.7)                             35 (85.4)       0.05 2.66 (1.00 to 7.12)

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? 

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. 

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.

But let's look at the real mask data they are promoting (as well as the 100+ news agencies that picked this up). 

No of family members wearing mask at home before primary case’s illness onset date (median (IQR))

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

None                       31 (25.6)                 27 (33.3)                             4 (10.0)       – Ref 

One or more           90 (74.4)                 54 (66.7)                              36 (90.0)   0.009 0.22 (0.07 to 0.69)

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 before 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. 

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. 

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, Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV. 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. AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick, 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. 

After that, Dr. Fauci legally took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies 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 weakened immune cells and made the ineffective. 

Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID which Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research. Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA (and here), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization (before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. 

During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," Dr. Fauci pushed for emergency use of Remdesivir, again this drug was found to be ineffective against Ebola after independent studies. 

Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but his net worth is apparently in the millions. 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?

Further, just as with AZT, Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment and pushed it through emergency use. Independent studies showed that people who took Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit (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 WHO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all, 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). 

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. 

Antifa : Fascists Falsely Claiming to be Antifacist

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. 

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. 

I stumbled across THIS article that mentioned the similarities of both groups. The person who wrote this came across the same irony that I noticed:

"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 Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook) 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."

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."

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. 

Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety

 Yes, previously when mRNA vaccines were given to animals, they developed blood clots 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 the worst kinds of vaccine fraud. 

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.

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!

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. 

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. 

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."

Now That We Know Bill Gates' Virtual Learning Fails Can We Stop Listening to This Guy?

 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. 

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.

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. 

Consider virtual learning. Remember, Bill had made a heavy investment in this. Despite his previous New York educational failures, Cuomo turned to him to revolutionize Virtual Learning, believing as Bill Gates preached, that in-class learning was unnecessary. 

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. Bill Gates stole the API from CP/M to make MSDOS and Biden plagiarized his schoolwork among other things.

Well, as children have failed Bill Gates' Virtual Experiment 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.