The United States Democrats Orchestrated the Largest Human Rights Violation and Voter Fraud in History--and It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTING VOTES

 The Freedom of Speech is an American's first amendment right. In past years, "fact checkers" have sprung up everywhere. Now, originally THE fact checking organization was Snopes, but even they started to have problems. Fact checking organizations were, for the most part, harmless when it came to free speech. People still had the right to speak out and say what they believed and those reading or hearing their message were able to do their own fact checking using their preferred fact checking organization. 

By freedom of speech, anyone should have the ability to say anything about anyone else, unless what they say is a direct threat to another person. For example, a person who says "I want to kill XXX" should be investigated. Detailed plans on how to kill yourself or others should also be removed. 

The problem with this election is that the Democrats moved direct threats into a gray area. It started with COVID-19--no one, even scientists who have for centuries been openly debating ideas as a part of the scientific process, was allowed to publicly say anything different from the mainstream because it "might" put someone's lives at risk. The problem is that the CDC stopped putting out good information and started putting out garbage--even going against National Academy of Sciences advice on masks. Once this freedom of Speech was taken away without any formal protests, it moved to the next level.

Nancy Pelosi told FB and other social media to censor President Trump if he made ANY negative statements about her or other female Democrats because they would interpret that as direct attacks on women. This took away President Trump's freedom of speech, and as it has always been, once they took away someone's right to free speech they began to expand that power. FB and other agencies employed "fact checkers" that selectively silenced not only President Trump's voice, but also the voices of many Republicans. It is for this reason that I refused to vote for a single Democrat this year--a first to the best of my knowledge. I refuse to support a party that prohibits free Speech. 

How can you run for a political office without being allowed to say anything inflammatory about the other side or good about the things you have done especially when the other side is allowed to tell whatever lies they want about you? This is one reason why the Democrats thought they would win by a landslide. The problem is they did not stop their Human Rights violations there. 

The Democrats then petitioned to get the Green Party and Socialist Parties off the ballots in several states. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Green Party collected more than the required signatures in time (8,000+ when they only needed 5,000). The signature of the elected vice-president was not on an affidavit switching her out for the stand in vice president. Now, either this woman should have been allowed a chance to sign the paper or the stand in vice president should have gone on the ballot. Instead, the Democrats and the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to allow the Green Party Ballot Access. Ballot Access is already a trampled right in America. In Wisconsin, it was even worse. The Green Party filed a lawsuit 2 weeks after being told they could not be on the ballot there, and the judge threw it out because it wasn't filed in a "timely" manner. For most other things, you have at least 30 days to file against things. Michigan locked down, and when the Socialist Party asked to have the 30,000 required signatures reduced because of the difficulty of collecting during lockdown, they were denied this request. Democrats and Republicans in Michigan only had to get less than 12,000 signatures to be on the ballot.

American Political Third-Parties need equal access to ALL BALLOTS. There needs to be a federal law stating that (1) it is illegal to deny access to any party who has not previously appeared on a ballot and (2) all political parties must be subject to the SAME ballot laws. Unfortunately, Democrats were elected by their blind followers. 

Unfortunately, Democrats are still blind to the fact that the Democrat party has decided to trample rights akin to China. Chinese people do not get to vote because they only have one party for whom they can vote. Democrats denying ballot access is a step in that direction. Chinese people do not have freedom of Speech. They are not allowed to say anything against the ruling party. 

Now, before you argue that the Republicans are equally bad you should know (1) Republicans helped pay court fees so the Green Party could fight to get back on the ballot in court and (Republicans did not try to get Libertarians off the ballot until it was too late (i.e. they started the process after getting the idea from Democrats). 

As long as people continue to support Republican and Democrat nominees and their myriad of laws against third parties, Americans will never get a choice. Third parties have been getting more and more of the vote and in some cases beating Democrat challengers. These partisan laws need to be removed from the books and equal ballot access needs to be required throughout the United States. Third-parties need to start at lower levels (which are even more difficult to get ballot access for). They need to challenge unfair discrimination in ballot access laws in court. It is not a coincidence that once third parties started getting significant numbers Democrats decided to remove them and Republicans followed suit. 

Arizona and Georgia Need to Mask Up NOW!!!

Two states votes many of their population want Joe Biden in (who has promised to mandate masks), but these states do not have mandatory mask laws. This needs to be changed immediately. If their people want Biden for president, they need to put their masks on right now. 

Snopes: Forgetting How to Fact-Check Again

 Oh, Snopes, what a tangled web of lies you weave sometimes. You admit Hunter Biden was "dismissed" as an officer, but then say that is "most likely" a "general discharge."  False. Hunter Biden stated he had an administrative discharge, but he also seems to have lost everything as if he had been court martialed and dismissed. The "dismissal" of an officer is the equivalent to a dishonorable discharge. Officers cannot be dishonorably discharged--only "dismissed." "If an officer is convicted by a General Court-Martial, then that officer's sentence can include a "dismissal." This is considered to be the same as a dishonorable discharge." Further, if Hunter Biden resigned before his court martial, he would have been given an administrative discharge that was Other Than Honorable (which is similar to a dishonorable discharge but not as severe). If he received a "general" administrative discharge, this would draw some scrutiny, especially since others in the military have served 19 years honorably, tested positive for cocaine once and were not only dishonorably discharged, but also jailed. But with the military sealing the records, we will probably never know if Joe asked former President Obama (as head of the military) to pull a few strings for his son. That's right: the military has not released any details about the discharge Hunter received. Ironically, if Hunter had been court martialed, President Obama could have been the judge, sealed the records, and Hunter could have said anything he wanted about his discharge. President Trump, however, does have access to those records, so it blows my mind Snopes would feel they can fact-check his statement accurately. Fact checking requires finding original documents to support or disavow the claim. Snopes did not have access to any documents and merely gave their opinion on the matter based on Hunter Biden's own claims.

If Joe wouldn't have found a job in Ukraine for Hunter, his boy probably wouldn't have been able to afford any more cocaine since his discharge had civilian effects apparently similar to the dishonorable or "other than honorable" discharge. Granted, Hunter Biden managed to jump through many walls that normal people could not have just to join the military the way he did. At the time, I wanted an investigation into whether the whole war in Ukraine was because Hunter needed a job after his "dismissal. It was all too convenient in my opinion especially with documented inappropriate US interference. Why don't people care that while making $80,000+ per MONTH in Ukraine that Hunter stated he couldn't afford to pay child support to an out-of-wedlock kid he had in court? Please Democrats, you love to jump on everything the President does wrong, why don't you let Joe's faults come out, too... oh, I forgot. You don't support free speech. I don't understand how you are okay with Joe getting a job for his son numerous times but you are also okay with Joe locking down the country again and putting millions of hard-working Americans out of work--perhaps permanently.

If You Want to Stop COVID-19, Should You Vote Republican or Democrat?

 So, Joe Biden has said if he is elected, COVID-19 will go away. President Trump has stated similar things. Since Republicans AND Democrats are both saying they handled the pandemic better, I decided to FACT CHECK THEM. I looked at state populations, whether the state had a Democrat or Republican governor, COVID-19 case-fatality rates per state, cases per population, and deaths from COVID-19 per population. Guess what? There was NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in any of these values whether you were living in a Republican or Democrat states. All Democrat controlled states locked down, but one Democrat state does not require masks, so policies were mixed across states.

The most concerning thing is that if we look at overall deaths in the United States last year and compare them to deaths this year they are much, much higher. Our increase in deaths from all causes (COVID-19, suicides, heart disease) is 25% higher THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Why? Well, because we Americans have the unfortunate problem of being in a wicked political battle because it is an election year. We have the unfortunate position of having a CDC and FDA that care more about politics than anything else.

Think I am wrong? President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The FDA banned hydroxychloroquine use in the USA. Now, I have seen some of the papers against hydroxychloroquine, but many of them contain insignificant information--and worse, the Lancet article panning it was retracted because the authors could not produce their data! There are several significant papers showing that hydroxychloroquine reduces the severity of COVID-19. I don't know if hydroxychloroquine is a good treatment or not, but I do know there was not enough grounds to completely ban experimentation on a drug that has been a safe treatment for malaria for years. I also know that African nations are relying on quinines to combat COVID-19. Every single African nation has half the COVID-19 case-fatality rate of any Western nation. This could be a coincidence, but without research we won't know. It is not acceptable to cancel research simply because there is some risk and preliminary results are not significant. Most research has some risk.

President Trump was given a treatment for his COVID-19, from which he recovered quickly. Less than two weeks later the FDA banned that drug. I didn't see all the information for that, but it makes me suspicious either they were trying to kill the President or they don't want others to recover that quickly.

The FDA is refusing to regulate masks. If you contract COVID-19 in a state that requires mask, you have a 1.16% greater chance of dying from it than if you live in a state that does not require COVID-19. I did the statistical analysis and this was a significant (albeit small) increase (p=0.0077236). The FDA is required by law to regulate medical devices, such as masks, but despite numerous reports of adverse effects of masks that have been filed with the FDA, they are still not regulating them for safety or effectiveness.

At the same time, the CDC flips from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. It changes wording on things, seemingly to avoid legal action. Despite the failure of our national health institutions, Republicans and Democrats could look at the rest of the world and say, "Hey, we might be doing something wrong here." Instead, they jump on every chance they can to point fingers at the other side. They could question the CDC recommendations in light of world recommendations. They could force the FDA to regulate masks, but they don't. Why? Well, because this is an election year, and people dying at massive rates compared to anywhere else in the world makes good political ammo. But if you are voting for a political party instead of a person simply because you believe that political party will reduce or stop the COVID-19 pandemic, you are voting for unfounded reasons.

The Nation of Hate: Juneteenth and The Anti-Trump Democrat Agenda (as written by a person who doesn't particularly like President Trump)

This is a very controversial post, but I feel my experiences need to be told so others can see that these groups who claim to want "change" are actually filled with very hateful, closed-minded people.

I have a friend, I'll call her Alice. I normally don't believe in identifying race, but in this case it is important to what I am about to say: She is African-American, but she is NOT a representative of the African-American race even though her parents and skin tone place her in it. Now, I want to stop right here and explain I have many friends across many "races." I do not believe in race. We are all descendants of Noah, and we all need to treat each other like brothers and sisters.

Unfortunately, Alice does not feel this way. I met Alice a long time ago when we used to coach together at the YMCA. I have been friends with her for some time on FB, but she has not gone out of her way to contact me--I don't know if she has even looked at my feed in many years the way I have looked at hers. She became a political activist a while back and is deeply involved in the Democrat Party. Since Juneteenth and Tulsa were on few people's minds prior to President Trump's announcement of a rally there, and since Juneteenth only represents the end of Civil War slavery in Texas, it is my opinion that the recent strong push for a federal holiday that is "solely African-American" as opposed to the evil "Columbus Day" (ironically free Africans were also involved in the discovery of America), is the direct result of the media and Democrats to paint President Trump as a bigger racist than Joe Biden. Apparently, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day no longer exists or is important--which is sad in my opinion since the gaining of civil rights did far more for Africans (and all races) in this country than the day the Texas slaves gained their freedom.

Now, as a political activist, Alice of course posted about how great Juneteenth was and how it should be a federal holiday. Prior to this year, few people had heard of it. In fact, the only reason we have heard about it is because the media hates our President and so do social activists--and Joe Biden's inability to control his mouth probably didn't help.

Keep in mind that I did not vote for President Trump nor do I think he is doing a good job as President. But, that is not a reason to suppress his voice or persecute him on levels even greater than what the Republicans did during President Obama's terms.

Juneteenth is the day that the slaves were set free in Texas. It was a holiday the ex-slaves created and celebrated only in Texas until their freedoms were taken away again in the early 1900s. It got started because two months after the Civil War ended, federal troops came to Texas to force the Texans to give up their slaves (they should have freed them in April of that year when news reached them that the Civil War was over and they had lost). It did not free all slaves. For example, Kentucky (a state that did not join the Confederacy but that had slaves) did not free 65,000 of its slaves until December 7th.

Juneteenth is also not the only celebration of emancipation. August 8th is Emancipation Day in Tennessee and Appalachia, for example. But let's be realistic, African Americans were not freed until the Supreme Court gave them the right to vote March 24th, 1969. For this reason, when Alice posted about Juneteenth with how it set slaves free and it should be celebrated, I responded that there were better days (March 24, July 2) that celebrated true freedom for African Americans.

And I was shot down and accused of attacking her. She said I needed to explain myself, so I did. What I said was in depth and some of her followers agreed with me.

Surprisingly, she invited me to a group that was talking about Juneteenth.

I admit, I was dumb. I trusted in the friendship we once had. I thought she invited me because she really wanted to hear my ideas and have a discussion. I was wrong--and this is why I am writing this because I want people to know that you can no longer trust all your friends on Facebook--even the ones you know.

I was slightly confused at the invitation, but I didn't realize it was a trap. I joined the Zoom group and was partitioned into a separate small group. The leader asked a question and allowed everyone to answer it--except for me. I was having technical difficulty and could only use chat, so I began typing my response: I didn't support Juneteenth as a federal holiday because I didn't feel it represented true Emancipation. I pointed out that Texas should have freed its slaves two months earlier. I pointed out that slaves were not truly free.

The leader of the group finally looked at my comments and said it was Two years (apparently thinking I was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and not the day the Civil War ended), and that I was just the type of ignorant person they were trying to fight against.

I tried to get her attention with the chat but from that moment onward, anything I typed was ignored... except by Alice's daughter (who was also in the group), Kay. Kay began by informing me again of my ignorance. When I made a statement in group chat that I believed Fred Hampton was "the poster child for police brutality." I was told I had offended Kay by making this statement. As I continued talking with her privately, she stated that African Americans could not do big things only small ones. I tried to encourage her by telling her that those in the Civil Rights movement--which was completely created, organized, and executed by African Americans DID achieve big things. I was again told I was being offensive.

I was so glad when it was done. I almost quit sooner, but I wasn't sure if that would be rude. The next day, I saw yet another support Juneteenth post by Alice talking about things people "learned" and things people "should learn" about African American history. At that point it hit me--most of these things people "should learn" were not only about Juneteenth but also about the Tulsa riots (I have given a brief explanation at the end of this). This wasn't about getting a new federal holiday--this was about pushing an Anti-Trump Democrat agenda. When I realized what she was doing, I added in a truth in the comments that followed in her style of "you learned" but "you should have learned." Mine said "You learned that slavery ended June 19, 1865, but 65,000 slaves in Kentucky were not set free until December 7th, 1865.

It was at that point that she dug into me in a private message. She said I owed her and her daughter an apology for offending them. She, who went to a top private college an whose daughter is at that same college (Kay stated in the group she got into the college because she was "black" and that made her angry... ???), she started talking about my "white privilege." I grew up in the same neighborhood. I have struggled my whole life. Because of financial issues, I went to a state college that is not ranked in the top 50 even though I graduated Valedictorian of my class and had high SATs. I have been pulled over because police officers "didn't recognize my car." I have feared because I have driven in backwoods places in the middle of the night, and I knew I could be killed and never found if someone decided they did not like me. What is this white privilege?

It was at that point, when I saw that she felt she could attack me and shame me and say whatever she wanted to me, but I had better apologize to her and her daughter for some offense I am still not clear about, that I started to realize this was not my friend. The politics of the world had changed her into something evil. I did not immediately reply, but I felt that if I had truly offended them for agreeing that African Americans are the subject of police brutality and have been for years, for telling Kay to not write herself into a box of low achievement, for stating the truth, then, yes, I should apologize, but what about all the offense they flung at me? I could not believe this was done (at this point) in malice. Perhaps just as I was ignorant (and still am) as to what offended them, they did not know how offensive they were being to me.

I spent the evening carefully crafting a response that included much of the above and began "If I offended you and your daughter I truly am sorry, but the group leader, your daughter and you have also offended me." As I got on Facebook the next day and sent her my reply privately, I saw that she had publicly posted her private message to me on her page, tagged me in it, and was collecting congratulations from all her friends about what an arrogant racist I was. Again, anything I said was silenced. My side of the story was not being told.

After my carefully crafted response had been sent, and I saw what she had done, I privately messaged her one last time, "Alice, I am unfriending you. I have been abused all my life, and I do not have to take abuse from my friends. I can see you are no longer the woman who stood on her own two feet, but you have become the woman who stands on the heads of your friends to gain position."

I unfriended her but she of course came back with something even nastier in private message before I could block her.

I am all for equality. I am all for police reform. I am all for government programs that help the poor become self-sufficient. But I am not going to apologize just because of my skin color--and in this case, Alice never told me how what I said offended her, so I can only assume that being "white" was my sole offense. Alice never apologized for the offense she caused me, and chided me because I "asked her to apologize" in her last hateful message (even though I did not ask for such an apology--I merely wanted her to see how she had hurt me).

I now know that Alice is a bully. She believes it is okay to silence anyone if they do not have the same opinions as her. She believes it is okay to tell people they are ignorant without listening to what they say. She believes it is okay to oppress other people--as long as she is not the one being oppressed.

So, now she will go back to her friends and talk about the racist white woman who expected an apology after I did nothing but offend her by telling her the truth. Unlike me, Alice will use my name and slander it across FaceBook and any other platform. I am thankful though that Alice and her equally hateful daughter are not a representative of either African Americans or even most members of the Democrat party. The problem is that when most white people meet Alice, they are not going to like her. She may be the first or only African American they have come in contact with on a personal level. As she tramples over their rights, calls people ignorant, and expects everyone who questions or disagrees with her statements to apologize, she is going to hurt any cause she champions.

Don't be Alice. Listen to the views of others--no matter what their skin tone. Treat others as equals. And if you run into Alice--run the other way. Any truth you try to impart to her or others listening will only be silenced by a round of bullying, shaming, and slander.

__________________________________________________________
The Tulsa Riots. I am taking my information from the source linked above and from a PDF of a first hand, African-America account of the riots, which I read and which you should be able to find online (Parrish, Mary E. Jones, ed. Events of the Tulsa Disaster). The Tulsa disaster as the author calls it was the result of massive misunderstanding during a racially charged, segregated time. A bunch of poor white and black farmers had lost their jobs and flocked into Tulsa--with both competing for jobs and with a rich black section in the city (Black Wall Street), racial tensions were high.

Add to that the fact that a white person had been lynched from the police station in the past month, and everyone was worried about justice. In this hot bed--in which riots had been predicted--a white girl and a black boy (please understand before you cry racist that it is my understanding these two were both teenagers, hence my calling them "girl" and "boy") ride up a couple floors together in an elevator... and he steps on her foot. She, for whatever reason, claimed she was assaulted. He was thrown in the jail. (Now, I want to say right here that he survived this mess that was about to happen and went to trial. She did not even show up at the trial and all charges were dismissed. Justice was served, despite the very valid doubts it would be. I tell you this here, because I didn't want you worrying about the boy.)

Now, he was in jail, and the NEWSPAPERS ran an editorial saying he should be lynched. Well, the sheriff moved the boy to a place he could better defend him against lynching. That night hundreds of white men showed up and surrounded the jail. At the same time, a concerned group of citizens from the black community went to the jailhouse to see if they could help. A black deputy came out and told them that the boy would be protected and they should go home or they might make things ugly. They complied. However, when the story ran through the black community they did not trust with all those people that the boy would be protected. Being a white boy was lynched within the past month, this was probably justified to some extent, but at the same time, what they did made it worse.

They got up an armed group of men who wanted to go down and support the police. By this time, thousands of white men (some armed, some not) were outside. And a bunch of armed black men showed up to the party. A white police officer came out this time and started arguing with the black men and telling them to go home. He then tried to take the gun away from one of the men, and in the struggle for it, it of course went off... and that is how the riot started. Those in the thousands of white men gathered who had brought their guns began shooting at the black men. The black men, defended themselves as they made their way back to their neighborhood.

The woman recounting the event says it was as if she was in the French war zone instead of in a neighborhood in Oklahoma. All night they shot back and forth over railroad tracks, and the next day, the white people brought two machine guns to the party. Machine guns are nasty. This is why they are outlawed. One machine gun pelted the front of the neighborhood where the armed men defended it. The other was set up behind, pelting the people who tried to flee. Cropdusters flew overhead with pilots who reigned down bullets and helped direct the battle. As the white people advanced, they burned almost everything. A National Guardsman apparently lost his life trying to stop the machine gun in the back. The police were useless and it was only when the National Guard was called in that the carnage stopped.

When the people who had lived in Black Wall Street came back after the National Guard had gotten control, their homes were burnt to the ground. The city quickly passed a "fire ordinance" that forbid people from rebuilding their homes. The black people were fed by the YMCA and cared for by the Red Cross, but they had to wear special identification because the National Guard did not let anyone into the neighborhood without it. I can only assume this was to protect them, but residents saw it as further outrage.

Psychology Today Breaks Many Ethical Standards

I recently read an article here in Psychology Today. In the past, I have considered articles on this website to be slightly biased, but I have used them to gather general information and as springboards for other research. However, this article is concerning on many levels and it shows the depths that media of any kind has sunk to in trying to affect presidential race outcomes.

(1) If the President were under the care of a mental health provider, that provider could not release ANY information about his diagnosis to the public unless subpoenaed by a court. Mental health professionals can lose their license if the violate patient confidentiality.

(2) The article claims that 70,000 unnamed mental health professionals have "diagnosed" the President without even seeing him. This is another very unprofessional thing to do. In addition to this "diagnosis," they have decided to not only discuss it with their colleagues, using the President's name, but also to publish an article about it.

I am not a President Trump fan. He is obnoxious, undignified, and uncouth. He raised taxes on the poor while lowering them for the rich. He has had what I feel are brief moments of genius, but 90% of his presidency and the decisions he has made and actions he has taken have been offensive and upset me greatly. But, when the media is trying so extremely hard to try and convince me the President is somehow "dangerous" or like "Hitler," when I for a fact know that President Trump is nothing like Hitler (based on extensive historical research and talking to people who lived under Hitler's regime), I begin to wonder what they are so scared of?

As an independent, I am going to suffer for the next four years under whomever is elected in November, but I am most certainly NOT going to choose someone simply because the media has made unfounded claims (and in this case claims that should have every one of those 70,000 professionals as well as the article's author's licenses revoked) trying to scare me away from his/her opponent. In fact, when they make these claims that are clearly scare tactics, it makes me want to vote for President Trump even more in November, if I could bring myself to stomach it. But whether or not I vote for him, I can tell you that in no way would I vote for Joe Biden. I refuse to vote for someone that the media tells me I have to vote for.

Trump: The First President with the Audacity to Decrease Tax on the Rich While Increasing Tax on Poor with No Added Benefits for the Poor and then puts the Poor out of Business

So Donald Trump has big cojones. First, he decided to decrease the tax on the rich while increasing the tax on the poor. Had the poor people gotten expanded Medicaid or had HSAs (a rich person's extra retirement fund parading as health insurance) been made illegal or had mental healthcare been improved, I wouldn't be complaining. However, poor people don't even get relief from the nasty school lunches Michelle Obama felt were necessary to implement. Many of our children get to starve throughout the school day and come home to binge on unhealthy foods because of it, which is probably why obesity took a sharper climb upward after her "healthy" measures. Where our kids might have once eaten broccoli covered in cheese, they now toss their plain broccoli in the trash. But I digress.

After raising our taxes, the coronavirus hit. Now, for those of you who are hyped out on media, the facts are this: (1) Neil Ferguson should have his college degrees removed and his job at the Imperial College taken away. He created a model that did not use COVID-19 data, but that he recycled from his swine flu predictions. This was the model they are relying on when they say quarantine will help us. You remember the hundreds of millions that died during the swine flu epidemic? He predicted that. He also predicted tens of thousands would die from mad cow... So, he's an idiot, and all the governments of the world went with it. (2) Coronaviruses are NOT new. We have been dealing with them for about 50 years. (3) COVID-19 cannot be spread by asymptomatic carriers-- really. Look up scientific research on it in peer reviewed journals (not pre-publish sites). Hint: to officially declare a disease capable of infecting others, you need to do animal experiments to see if they can contract the disease from people who test positive but have no symptoms. One or two "case" or "observational" studies have been published with a handful of participants, but these amount to poor circumstantial evidence and many of them admit the "asymptomatic" carriers had symptoms. (4) Household transmission is the number one way coronavirus spreads. It is also the number one way ANY infectious disease spreads. AND THE GOVERNMENT LOCKED YOU IN YOUR HOMES. Understand now why numbers go up drastically and never go back down once a country locks down? (5) Quarantining healthy people was developed in the 1300s to combat diseases. It is the only preventative health care measure that we still use. (Didn't see anyone burning massive bonfires in the streets now, did you?) Because of this, there is much research behind it. Guess what? It has never worked. Think about it. Bubonic plague spread across Europe. Didn't matter what they did. Yellow Fever-same. Cholera--same. Doesn't "flatten the curve" either. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence for that. It is just one of those cutesy catch phrases to psychologically manipulate you.

So, the short is, you are not sacrificing yourself for your neighbor. True sacrifice would be overcoming your fear and allowing the 1/3 of the workforce that was laid off without ANY income for more than 6 weeks now, to go back to work. But everyone seems to want 60 million people and their families to die. I don't get that. Why would anyone be okay with that?

The big thing is that those 60 million people are the ones President Trump was taxing more by fiddling with personal exemptions. That's right: He increased our taxes and then put us out of work an decreased our income. Rest assured, the rich still got their paychecks through investments while the rest of us were laid off. He also reduced corporate taxes, causing more than 60 large businesses like Amazon to get tax credits!!! That's right, these rich companies actually get money back and end up with a zero tax bill regardless of how many billions of dollars in profit they make each year. This should be a further sore spot for all those small businesses that were forced to permanently close.

For kicks and giggles, you can check out some of these to see just what the government is spending money on while it ignores the fact poor people need useful programs to keep them from becoming destitute:
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ejde45i/in-pictures-15-silliest-uses-of-taxpayer-money/#8c515f5374f2
https://reason.com/2019/04/15/happy-tax-day-here-are-6-infuriating-ways-the-government-spends-your-money/
https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/
https://moneyminiblog.com/lists/stupidest-things-u-s-government-spends-money-on/
https://americansforprosperity.org/5-outrageous-ways-the-federal-government-has-wasted-your-money-part-iv/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/top-10-wasteful-government-expenses/

Our country was founded on capitalism--a capitalism where the best companies survive. However, we have become more of a socialist hybrid where the rich and the big companies get government handouts and the government makes more laws, like the executive orders that closed down small business during COVID-19, to force small companies to close. We complain about the high cost of healthcare, but then the government looks the other way when healthcare becomes a business so large it is traded on the stock market. Capitalist societies can only survive when they don't abuse their citizens and selectively favor those big businesses who need financial help the least. And if those businesses do need financial help to stay afloat, well, true capitalism lets them fall because we all know the small guy doesn't get a handout when he or she struggles.