Why Aren't We Sanctioning Israel for Political Interference

Most know how Russia reportedly interfered in U.S. elections by hacking into computers and posting documents online about candidates. As far as I'm concerned, giving Americans documents about leaders because those leaders were too dumb to secure them is not really interference in an election, regardless of who leaked the information. We have sanctioned Russia/Russians for their involvement. 

TikTok had to undergo a divestment and a subsidy had to become an American company in order for Americans to continue using it because our politicians were scared of uncensored media and claimed that China was collecting data of Americans.

So, I fully expect the United States to now sanction Israel for interfering in U.S. politics. I received an unsolicited text from "Sarah" (I suspect it was really AI) from the phone number 817-345-6624. 

"Hi, I'm Sarah. What's your take on the latest developments in the US and Israel's pursuit of peace with Iran? Have a minute? Stop2End"

For the record, "Stop2End" seems to immediately identify the message as spam--not that I had any question about that. I suspected this was a bot, and I also suspected it was from some pro-Iran group, but despite the risk, I decided to continue the conversation. I did so by pointing out that the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Venezuela. To say they are pursuing peace is the equivalent of saying Hitler was just pursuing peace when he invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. I also stated that conquering and forced submissions of sovereign nations is never a pursuit of "peace" but rather warmongering. Yeah, if you follow me, you know I am not one to sugar-coat my opinions. 

The response was so AI:

"I hear you. It sounds like you're really concerned about the impact of US and Israel's actions on other countries, but don't you think that Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and aggression in the region is a threat to peace and stability that needs to be addressed?"

Note how I am first given a statement that sounds like the other person is reasonable. Then, I am asked to reconsider my views. In the response, my harsh statements are made milder--I complained that Israel and the US are warmongering, but my complaints are restated and softened--the sender says I am concerned about the "impact" of Israel/US actions. I am not "concerned" in the slightest. I am distressed and disgusted with their illegal actions. The sender then reverses my words, implying Israel and the US are a threat and turns them to say Iran is the threat that the US/Israel are merely trying to stop. The sender is following the steps of manipulating viewpoints to a T: establishing a connection--at no point am I told that my views are wrong; repeating what I said with softened words so it sounds like I was being softer about it but it sounds close enough to what I said for me to question my harshness; asking me another question to keep me engaged and try to build a relationship. 

It takes a little more than by-the-book manipulation techniques to deter me even when I know I am arguing with AI. I responded that I was more "concerned" about the long history of U.S. sponsorship of terrorism and deliberate destabilization of other sovereign nations (here I listed a few: Panama, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, South Korea, Poland... unfortunately, we have interfered in the overthrow of too many other countries). I also pointed out that this was not the first time we attacked Iran and overthrew its leaders. Again, "Sarah" tried to change my views and hinted that by not stopping Iran, it would be the same as ignoring a threat to global security:

"I understand your concerns about US foreign policy, but don't you think that Iran's actions, as the largest state sponsor of terrorism, pose a significant threat to regional stability and global security, and that a peace framework is needed to prevent further instability and protect civilians?"

This response is actually dangerous for the uninformed. First, I pointed out that the US regularly invades and destabilizes governments--this was restated as "concerns" about "foreign policy." Really? I generally think of "foreign policy" as diplomatic and strategic methods that don't involve turning other countries into puppet states. Again, though Iran is the bad guy (and I'm not saying that I support Iran or any of its internal policies, but they didn't attack us and I frankly could care less if they get nuclear weapons because let's be realistic, China, Russia, and the U.S. have them (plus numerous other countries) and so far the U.S. is the only country idiotic enough to have both used them and used them on civilian populations (i.e., we are the only ones committing war crimes with them). Further, Iran has an extremely stable government as long as we aren't attacking it. My reply, of course, was much briefer. Overlooking much, I simply stated the fact that the US is both the largest sponsor of terrorism and the biggest threat to global peace. 

For the first time, however, the AI disagreed with me. Then it proceeded to ask me for my e-mail, which I refused. The final message it sent was:

"I understand you're skeptical, but I'd like to offer you a different perspective. If you're interested in learning more about why many Americans view Israel as a strategic partner rather than just a recipient of aid, this site has articles and videos on the U.S.-Israel relationship, shared security interests, technology, and democratic values: https://allyvia.org

Herein is the crux of the matter. That website is run by State of Israel lobbyists. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA),  Foreign Agents, like the State of Israel, must disclose that they are fully funded by a foreign country before interacting with Americans, and they 100% should follow this rule. Would you want to get texts from Russia or China trying to convince you that it was a good idea to give more federal aid to those nations? I wouldn't. If I got said texts, I would want to know up front that I was getting a text from an organization funded by a foreign country. 

American politicians already have too many foreign groups trying to manipulate them through "government think tanks" (read: foreign-funded organizations that create "research papers" and "forum discussions" to encourage our representatives to give their countries more free money). If I can't watch uncensored TikTok, I don't want the State of Israel sending me texts to try to convince me that the Iran war is good, and Israel needs more money. We are already plastered with pro-State-of-Israel propaganda across news agencies, and several of our politicians have already admitted they are in the pocket of the State of Israel. I don't need AI texts trying to tell me the U.S. needs to support a regime that even Israeli nations know is corrupt. 

I reported this to the FBI, but with our current leadership that wants to do whatever Israel says, we'll see where that goes. 

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. 

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. 

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.