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. 

The Real Reason for the U.S/Israel-Iran War

Many people like to approach this as a Zionist thing--and it certainly appeals to Zionism. But the truth of the matter is that Netanyahu wants Israel to be the tollbooth for all the oil in the region. Israel wants the power to shut the world's oil on or off and effect world markets, and it wants other Gulf Countries to pay for this. By forcing Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, they can go to those who were dragging their feet and get them to seal this deal. 

If the other countries were smart, they would understand that pipelines are pretty easy to blowup. None of the Middle East has been able to protect itself from Iran. Personally, if I had a neighbor who could beat me up, I wouldn't go picking fights with him/her all the time. 

My questions are twofold: Why is the United States helping with this? Is it (as some have hinted) because our President is scared of even more things that Israel agents have on him beyond Epstein? He shouldn't be since former President Clinton showed you won't be impeached for sexual immorality or lying on the stand. I think that the President is helping Israel manipulate markets. On April 1, everyone in the news knew that President Trump was going to make an announcement at 8 pm--an odd time. That he was going to make this announcement was known for over 24 hours and promoted. In the morning of April 1, while markets were opened, it was rumored throughout the news that he was going to announce an end to the war in Iran. Gas prices were affected accordingly. Then, the announcement came and it said nothing except we were absolutely not ending the war. 

Most people think stocks have to go up to make money on the stock market. This is not true. Stocks can go down and people can make money on them by short selling. Short selling works best, of course, when you know what the market is going to do and you can guarantee it is going to drop. 

My second question is: Why does the world ignore that the U.S. and Israel are obliterating citizens, just as Israel did in both Palestine and is doing in Lebanon, but when Iran attacks civilians in retaliation, they are committing war crimes? Ever since the United States decided to drop to atomic bombs on civilian cities in Japan, war has shifted from two armies fighting each other to one army wiping out the civilians of another country. In Korea, we killed refugees. In Vietnam, we attacked unarmed civilians and dropped Agent Orange on them. How can any American complain about war crimes when we measure our own actions with a different stick? 

Today's warfare is even worse. People are not making the decisions as to what targets to hit in Iran, Palestine, or Lebanon. The 4000+ AI centers scattered throughout the U.S. are doing it for our military. They are choosing what to target, and they are choosing to target girl's schools, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Many troops following orders end up scarred for life because of the evil things they are told to do. When will Americans put a stop to this and execute any commanding officer that authorizes a civilian target?

(AI was used to help generate this image, and hours were spent by the author editing it.)

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. 

Everyone Should Be Very Worried About the Interest Rate Drop

 I have long complained that CPI is not a real measure of inflation. About 15 years or so ago, I looked into what was in the actual "market basket" when it was first invented and researched--back in the 1950s--and then went to the store and priced it. If I just did math and relied on the CPI as adjusted by the FED, that market basket should have cost around $250. It actually would have cost $400. 

This should be no surprise for people living in the USA today. In 2019, we could go to McDonalds and get a chicken sandwich for $1. Now it is $2.59. That is 259% inflation. However, the cumulative rate of inflation according to the FED is about 25%. 

If you are wondering how I can price the exact same things the FED says it's pricing and come up with a much larger inflation rate, that's because I am really reporting the price changes. After the FED prices things, it frequently decides they are too expensive and instead of simply reporting the new cost of say a car, it decides to fudge its numbers. It makes a subjective but "research based" estimate of how much more value a car today is than a car from ten years ago. There is a good breakdown of this here. 

Cars supposedly last longer these days, but the average car on the road today is 12.5 years old with 169,000 miles according to the Department of Transportation. The average car on the road in the 1970s based on what the online consensus seems to be is that they lasted 10 years and 100,000 miles. Now, I had a 1981 Honda Civic with over 200,000 miles, and it was still running when I got rid of it in 2000. There are tons of problems with the logic that modern cars are more technologically advanced so they last longer. In 1950, the average new car cost about $1,600. Now, $48,000 is the average price--for 2.5 more years of life. That's a straight CPI of 3000% but after the FED adjusts their CPI, its only 1206%. Since cars make up a decent amount of the overall percentage of CPI, "adjusting" or as I like to say "fudging" the numbers is not good. This is not a real "cost of living." And of course this is only one of many ways the CPI is "adjusted."

All poverty levels and state programs including disability and social security are based on these numbers. So, a person living on social security in 1950 might have been able to afford a new car, but they could not today. This also means that poverty is a lot worse in the US than what is reported, which is 12.5% or about 1:10. However, 36% of people are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat or 1:3 people. Not being able to buy food because you can no longer afford it is, to me, living in poverty. 

Ironically, inflation isn't really going down even with the interest rate increases. So why is it going down? I bet you can figure that out--the FED changed how they were calculating CPI and did one of their subjective "adjustments." Everyone rejoiced and the stock market was confused why they didn't immediately cut the rates again. Well, the FED obviously knew its new numbers were fudged. Now inflation numbers are down where "normal" is supposed to be. With all these investors and politicians complaining--because in America we hire the dumbest of the dumb to represent us in Washington (i.e. they can't do basic math and will just give themselves a pay raise if they start to struggle with groceries), the FED just slashed our interest rates. 

The problem here is obvious. Inflation didn't stop when they raised interest rates. Inflation is higher than what the numbers say. A large portion of Americans can't afford food, and our idiot government keeps printing money to send to Ukraine and Israel so they can massacre people we don't like and to pay our overpaid weapons dealers and banknote holders. Our GDP gets fudged--I mean "adjusted"--for inflation based on the inflation numbers that were fudg--I mean "adjusted." That means our GDP looks a whole lot bigger than what it actually is because our inflation adjustment is not as big as what it should be. Our current GDP is probably overinflated by more than 200%. With a national debt of 28 trillion and growing astronomically by the minute, the fudged GDP, which is ironically called "real GDP" has us at about 23 trillion right now. 

Japan has been able to maintain a much higher debt ratio, but their people have large savings accounts that the government can borrow from cheaply. We do not. If we are fudging our inflation, we are spending as much as we need to be spending on our people, and we are not giving accurate information to our creditors. Further, our inflation is still raging out of control and our government has not done much to reign it in. The only real thing it did was increase interest rates and now we are lowering them. I don't think this will last long. Inflation is not just a result of interest rates. It is a result of debt and money printing. As long as we keep doing that, more and more Americans will go hungry. With the government fixing the books, fewer and fewer of them will be able to get any aid. 

Please Double Check My Latin

 

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. 

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.

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?!

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. 

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." 

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.

World War III--Vietnam on a Whole New Level

 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 Lt. General Michael A. Loh, Director of the U.S. Air National Guard. 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.  

I am reminded of another king who wanted to show foreigners all his riches. In 2 Kings 20:12-19, 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. 

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 Pentagon Papers 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. 

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 "weapons of mass destruction" 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? 

We have environmentalists destroying artwork and protesting against global warming--but where are the environmentalists when we are going to ship depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine and cause a nuclear pollution incident worse that Chernobyl? That radiation hit the U.S. Do you think this radiation won't?

Our military isn't what it was. We have had years of spending cuts in all the wrong places. Those who join no longer get free meals and uniforms--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 no real function because of all the bugs still not fixed after more than a decade and are more like a Ferrari that you don't drive to work everyday.

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 CEOs from weapon manufacturers. These people leave their jobs, work at the Pentagon shaping war policy for a bit, and then return to them. 

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. 

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?

Clash of Clans Unsafe on Many Levels

 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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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."

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

NATO Helps a Global Criminal Control Ukraine

 

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):

“Igor Kolomoisky, 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, Hunter, 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, according to reports.” 

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) stillgets profits from those overseas accounts through his wife. 

Also, “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.” So, Kolomoisky made sure Poroshenko was no longer president by running Zelensky instead. Kolomoisky, a person of Jewish descent like Zelensky, allegedly funds theAzov Battalion, Aidar and other Neo-Nazi groups. 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 wasn’tafraid to brag about this to USA today in 2015. 

Our own current secretary of state, Antony Blinken stated, “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.” 

 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. 

 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.

Stop these criminal supporting warlords from destroying our country over this. Vote for anyone but a Democrat or Republican!

Ukraine Idiocy

 

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 United Stated funded the overthrow of the rightful UkrainianPresident who had been elected in a U.N. supervised election. 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.

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, who was trying to dig up dirt on Hunter and the current President, discovered that many upper-level officials were making dirty money in Ukraine. 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. 

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!

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.

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.

It Has Only Taken Two Years for Scientists Today to Start to Figure Out What They Knew Right After the Spanish Flu

 Well, look at that, our modern scientists finally figured out what they knew right after the Spanish flu—lockdowns failed to stopCOVID-19 deaths and spread, and limiting gatherings might have increased COVID-19 deaths. Some scientists are also finally admitting that COVID-19boosters don’t help, 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 serious side effects now finally being reported, 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--Kiribati just enacted lockdown and others are still in lockdown mode 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.

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.  April is the next spike, let’s see if the CDC decides to relinquish its power over the world or not.

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 hapless,vaccinated sheep who believed he or she could go out with COVID-19 symptomssince they received these fake “vaccines.” 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.

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."

Time to Break up the Monopoly

 This 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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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 Pinterest, LinkedIn, Goodreads, and Blogger (which I already use), here are some options I am planning to try: WT Social, Parler, Mastodon, MeWe, Ello, Steemit, and Diaspora. 

I might also try VK, 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 Sina Weibo 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 Discord because it limits your content only to those in your group and it is a very different medium than FB. 

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.

The COVID-19 Vaccine is neither safe nor has it been "proven" to be 95% effective after the second shot.

 The news, as it has been doing since the beginning of COVID-19, is not being held accountable for its misleading headlines. 

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 schools are closing down because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work. Hospitals are rotating who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects. 

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. 

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. 

Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to this paper), 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. 

Further, we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death. 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. 

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? 

So, why does the news say it is "95%" effective? Well, because 95% of the people who receive the second dose will develop antibodies to the vaccine but this is not an antibody to COVID-19. The vaccine itself contains a man-made virus that is not COVID-19. It also contains a chemical that has never been used in shots before and is suspected of causing severe allergic reactions. 

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? 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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.