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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine Is "Keeping" the Area They Took in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, is being crucified in the news this week because he happened to have a rich conservative friend (gasp--a conservative has a conservative friend) with whom he went on vacations. No where in the judicial code does it say that Supreme Court Justices (or any judges for that matter) cannot have friends, attend parties, or go on vacations with other like-minded people. In fact, Courts across the nation have ruled that you must get your paycheck from a Plaintiff/Defendant or someone who could be a Plaintiff/Defendant in the case or one on a similar subject matter in order to recuse. They have also ruled that if you were put in your position by one of the Plaintiff/Defendants, (i.e. if someone made large donations to your election or re-election campaign), you also should recuse. Justices do not even have to disclose their financial information. But Clarence Thomas wasn't involved in an election campaign and the person he was vacationing with has never, to the best of my knowledge, been before him in  a legal case. Remember that.

The Code of Conduct for Judges also specifically states that a Judge cannot publicly give his or her opinion on a case prior to it coming before the judge, the judge reviewing the evidence from both sides, and then the judge officially giving his/her ruling. So, why wasn't RBG impeached or at least threatened with impeachment as Clarence Thomas is being threatened with impeachment? Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward--PRIOR TO RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. When the case came before her, she didn't even think about recusing despite the clear guidelines that she must do so. Again, Clarence Thomas is a conservative black man. RBG was a liberal white woman. Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a rich, outspoken conservative. At no point did he discuss any of his cases or publicly make statements about them prior to deciding them based only on the evidence before him and the law. RBG, on the other hand, publicly supported gay marriages and performed them even when they were not legal, but her failure to recuse went by silently.

But let's talk about another judge who hasn't recused--probably the reason everyone is trying to crucify Clarence Thomas--so people don't talk about him. Let's talk about Justice Juan Merchan. In New York, you see, this judge was put into his position directly by the Democratic Party. That's right, in New York, home of Tammany Hall--the poster child of political corruption. Now, there are 136 judges in New York that are supposed to randomly get cases. Justice Juan Merchan has remarkably managed to draw 4 separate Trump cases and have them assigned to him in just a couple years. Please correct my math if its wrong, but that's like 3 in 1 billion odds. For comparison, in 2021, 65,000 criminal cases were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this? 

I am willing to say that a judge put in place by the Democrats could rule in an unbiased manner against someone the Democrats loath and absolutely do not want running for office in the next election, but I start to waver on that when I look at Trump's current indictment. Justice Juan Merchan allowed Trump to be indicted for 39 counts of hiding criminal actions. The problem is that Trump was not indicted for said CRIMINAL ACTIONS. How can a person be indicted for hiding criminal actions without BEING INDICTED FOR THOSE ACTIONS? The district attorney brought absolutely no other criminal charges. If Trump was hiding a crime, why wasn't he charged with that crime? If you don't have enough evidence that he committed one or more crimes, why in the world are you charging him with anything? 

Well, that's simple--although it is something that most unbiased courts frown upon. During court discovery, the Prosecuting attorney can ask for pretty much anything and Trump has to give it to him or try to get the judge to agree that the Prosecuting attorney doesn't need it. Now, imagine that every single detail of your life could be brought into a lawsuit--that little monitor in your car that records your speed wherever you go, for example, or all your checkbook records, your personal diary, your calendars...Can you say you have never broken a single law in all your life? Most people don't even read and know all the laws. So, if the judge doesn't stop it, the prosecuting attorney can go on a fishing expedition. And even if he doesn't find anything, he can still say Trump was hiding criminal intent and did it so well there isn't evidence of the actual crime. That's not the way the courts are supposed to work, but the case should have been thrown out from the beginning unless the prosecutor charged Trump with an actual crime that he was hiding. That Justice Juan Merchan did not do that is what makes me believe he should recuse. When that is added to all the other information about him, I question whether he could rule against the wishes of the party that put him in office. 

But Clarence Thomas going on vacation with friends is the topic of the poor news agencies this week. For them, Justice Juan Merchan is a hero, just as RBG was. I, personally, would like MORE black men on our Supreme Court. I fail to understand how going on vacation with a like-minded person could influence you in any way as a judge. You already agree on most topics--so where is the influence?

DON'T Say Their Name

Active shooters have one thing in common--they want to go down in an infamous blaze of glory with their names plastered across the news. Not only does the news media grant their dying wish and encourage others to do the same, but some news agencies try to look into the psychology of the person doing the shooting and empathize with them. Yes, when sociopaths and those with untreated mental illness attack others, those of us who are sane question why they would do that. The answer is simple: They are insane. Never should a news agency use mental illness as an excuse for what these people do--hundreds of millions of people suffer with mental illness every day and most who get treatment are still suffering due to the trial and error process that no scientist has been tasked with resolving. Poverty or abusive families is also not the answer--again hundreds of millions of children suffer abuse and poverty and do not shoot anyone. 

The Tennessee shooting, where we have evidence the shooter wanted to both die and to make it on the news--the real motives of this evil person, shows us that our media needs to be more discrete in granting these shooters wishes. Imagine if all news agencies stopped printing shooter names and pictures and solely focused on the victims. Imagine if all news agencies simply referred to the perpetrators as "the evil shooter" and solely stated the person did it because s/he was evil. Some shooters wouldn't care that they were considered evil, but all of them want their names and images in the press. 

I would love to say that people can fix this by simply not clicking on the articles, but unfortunately, you don't always know if an article is going to talk about the shooter or the brave souls who confronted the shooter and the victims. Everyone can complain to news agencies and block them for a month if they use shooter names or try to empathize with mass shooters. It is time for our society to stop making bad people seem justified in their action. Scientists have long realized that people who don't suffer any negative consequences for their bad actions continue doing bad actions. 

Unfortunately, bad scientists who grouped abusive practices in with spanking on the butt convinced parents they don't need to discipline their children. Worse scientists convinced everyone involved in children's lives to give them unearned rewards and praise that was not earned and to downplay half-hearted efforts. These humanists did what they could to push a lie: People are inherently good. Real science shows that people left to their own means will inherently do bad things (although the level of bad varies among them). People need to suffer consequences for their bad choices and putting a killer's name and image all over the news when that is exactly what they want is encouraging others to make the same bad choices. 

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.

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

 You remember Snake Island--the brave Ukrainians who lost their lives defending it and the Ukrainian President's vow to posthumously award them the equivalent of a medal of honor? Except they aren't dead. By why quibble over words? After all, Ukraine will say one thing and then say the exact opposite without blinking an eye.

Remember that the Ukrainians were winning--they were stopping Russian forces? Oh, but they also were losing and needed NATO's help and weapons. Which is it? 

Remember that the Russians ran out of food and gas? This was spread all over the Western news while the Russian news reported that they would periodically halt troop movement because they thought Ukraine wanted to negotiate or in some cases to allow citizens to flee. But we can't have Russians looking like humanitarians, so we came up with the most ridiculous scenario we could find: they were out of food and gas. Because Russia isn't one of the largest exporters of wheat and gas? Why are the Russians advancing now? Did they suddenly figure out how to fill up?

Then there was the holocaust memorial that was bombed. Note: this was not done in the first days of the attack, although it could have been, but people still stayed in Kyiv and that museum happened to be close to communications targets. So, five people, who apparently chose not to evacuate, lost their lives. Was it a direct target attacking Jewish people? Or was it a missile gone astray from its communications target? 

Then there is that: Western news reports more than half a million people have evacuated Ukraine while at the same time stating that Russia is surrounding cities and preventing people from evacuating. Which is it? 

Lies like this that were blatant throughout COVID-19 should be easy for Western readers to spot--but apparently we have lost all our common sense. When "four legs good; two legs bad" becomes "four legs good; two legs better" we all have a lot more than Russians to worry about.

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

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.

Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. 

In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.

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

 Several news agencies report that NATO is completely in agreement with our choice to invade: SEe for example, Fox, the Hill. Really? "Unanimity" means "agreement by all people involved." Croatia is in NATO. It's president has said that if the United States goes to war with Russia over Ukraine, Croatia will drop out of NATO. Now, although the Croatian president is not the Croatian's NATO contact, he has full control of the military--if he doesn't send troops and drops out of NATO that is what will happen. I suppose since Croatia will no longer be a member that would return the "total unanimity" but as of right now many nations see the United States as the aggressor here. 

Keep in mind that way back when the first revolt broke out in Ukraine, the president that was ousted had been elected in a legal, U.N. supervised election... and the U.S. funded his removal. Since then, we have dumped billions into equipping and training our Ukrainian puppet government--will Americans ever get tired of this scenario that started with Korea and Vietnam? Hunter Biden, who was no longer employable in the U.S. because of his dishonorable "general" discharge from the military was given a cushy job in Ukraine because he was the vice-president's son. When Burisma was investigated, former Vice-President Biden said if Ukrainian officials didn't drop the charges, the U.S. would withhold aid... and then bragged about doing so on television. Last year, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, when our government was printing money like there was no tomorrow--increasing inflation--we gave Ukraine, out of the goodness of the American people's hearts, more than half a billion dollars! This didn't go to the people of Ukraine, by the way, this went to their military, so they could attempt to retake the land Russia has refused to release: The parts of Ukraine that are populated by Russian citizens. 

The biggest question should not be whether the other NATO member countries are willing to go to war over non-NATO Ukraine just to keep U.S. secret dealings there secret. After NATO's failure in Afghanistan, they were already questioning the alliance. The real question is are Americans willing to sacrifice their children to the war effort? Consider the fact we already have American troops on the ground "training" Ukrainian military--I don't think the current Administration cares what Americans, or any other European nation, wants. 

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

More Bad "Science"

 NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19. Now, sceptic that I am, I crunched the numbers in the article, and... well the case fatality from COVID-19 among the vaccinated is about 1.1%. Then, I did a quick check by crunching the numbers of cases in the US and the case fatality from COVID-19 in general (over the past two years mind you--and doctors were killing them left and right in the beginning)... its 1.6%. So, if you get the vaccine, you are "drastically" reducing your chance of dying from COVID-19 by 0.5%. 

Then I stumbled across this gem published by the CDC. Again, the title and a bunch of technical wording makes it seem as if your chance of dying from COVID-19 is lower if you are vaccinated. This is false. Crunch the numbers yourself. In the 569,000ish people who were not vaccinated and got COVID-19, 1.1% of them died. In the 45,000ish people who were vaccinated and caught COVID-19, 1.3% of them died. That's right--the fully vaccinated were MORE likely to die from getting COVID-19. I also note that while they talk about the "substantial" differences, they fail to mention "significant" differences. This is important. If the paper does not find significant results (and that word is not mentioned at all!!!!) its conclusions should not be trusted. That is the purpose of significance in a scientific study. Shame on the CDC (again) for publishing this piece of fake science. 

Now, lets think about this. Countries in the EU are no longer allowing this or that vaccine because there is an increased risk of heart failure. According to Moderna's own information submitted to the FDA, there is an increase in other major organ issues too. And most mRNA vaccines in the past have also increased your chances of blood clots. I can't tell you how many obituaries of vaccinated people I have read that talk about them dying of stroke and then saying it is "unconnected" to their recent vaccination... For those of you who don't know, a stroke is basically a blood clot in the brain. I know personally of eight people who died "suddenly" within a few days of getting vaccinated and had no previous health issues. So your chance of dying or getting serious internal organ issues after being vaccinated are real. 

Further, the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 for less than 6 months. We have been doing mRNA vaccine research for 20 years and nothing they do has ever made it last very long. After that, your chance of getting COVID-19 doubles. I was wondering why new case numbers are climbing astronomically compared to last year despite the fact more than half the worldwide community is vaccinated. 

I mean, we are used to getting flu vaccines every year--but they have always told us it was a different flu. They are trying to do that with COVID-19, too by pushing "variants." There are thousands of variants out there, but you only hear about one or two. Ironically, the vaccines are supposed to cover all these variants, but "might not" cover any new variants... 

Are people willing to get 2 booster shots every year (or 3...or 4) for the rest of their lives when each shot puts their lives at risk? Keep in mind that unlike smallpox and polio, COVID-19 has MANY animal vectors who can get and give it: in other words, we can NEVER eradicate it. 

On the other hand, the people who get it naturally have immunity for at least a year and most research is saying they think it will be lasting. Granted, this research was not done on people who got it after being vaccinated. 

Perfect Study to Show Pro-Mask Bias

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

First and foremost, it is not a randomized controlled trial but rather an after-the-fact, what-do-you remember about your illness study. The researchers conclude, however, that the study (done on only 124 households) confirms that wearing masks will stop COVID-19 transmission and that transmission occurs in the first couple of days after symptom onset because all the primary subjects were hospitalized immediately as per China's policies. 

"This study confirms that the highest risk of household transmission is prior to symptom onset, but that precautionary NPIs, such as mask use...can prevent COVID-19 transmission during the pandemic."

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

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

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

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

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

So, according to their own data 85.4% of the families that caught COVID-19 from a loved one in their homes had that same loved one in their homes for MORE THAN 2 DAYS. How does that mean you are most likely to get it in the first two days or before symptoms appear? 

Now, these researchers were not asking people after the fact if they had caught COVID-19 from the primary case. Nor were they testing everyone in the family to see if they had really gotten COVID-19 from the person during the first two weeks when they could have caught it. No. Instead, a family member had to not only catch COVID-19 from the primary case, but then that person had to have symptoms severe enough that they went to the hospital, have a test confirming it, and where they would then be quarantined for who knows how long. Now, lets say you are family and Dad comes home sick from work with COVID-19. He goes to the hospital and is put there for a minimum of 2 weeks (and probably longer since this was in the first months of the pandemic when everyone thought you could get it for two months afterward). Jr. gets COVID-19 from dad, but at 10 years old he has no symptoms and nobody knows because they never test him. Mom also gets COVID-19 from dad, but she only has minor symptoms and she is already under forced quarantine because dad had it. As a mother, do you (a) go to the hospital (where you will be quarantined) and try to find someone else to watch your son who is supposed to be quarantined from everyone because of his exposure or (b) suck it up and take care of your son and household? Grandma gets COVID-19, but she doesn't have it that badly and doesn't want to go to the hospital, so she spends time in her room using old-school traditional medicine. Voila, no secondary transmission in that family. 

Now, lets remember, the WHO tested 70,000 people in the beginning of this and confirmed that the transmission rate among household members was about 80%. This study of 124 families says household transmission is only 23%!!! Wow. There were 26 families that did not have secondary transmission and never wore masks. There were 21 families with secondary transmission that never wore masks. So, 47 families never wore masks and 55% of those families did not have secondary transmission as defined by the study's perimeters. Either WHO and their huge study were wrong or this study is wrong. Considering most of the data in this study did not have statistical significance, I think I will go with WHO.

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

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

                                Total                    Families without                Families with

                                                            secondary transmission      secondary transmission

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

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

There is a lot wrong with this data. My first impression was that it is almost identical to the data above concerning how long it took to get into the hospital quarantine. Were the same families that were not wearing masks prior to the onset of the disease also waiting to go to the hospital? If that is true that could invalidate all the data--but this similarity is not mentioned or explained anywhere in the text. Second, why are only 121 of the 124 families recorded here? Third, and this is the most interesting: why isn't the data broken down into "none" "some" and "all"? Or better yet, "all" and "none or not everyone wore a mask"? What the authors are trying to say and what they have statistically proven is that only one person in your family has to wear a mask at all times and the entire family will be safe. If Grandma wears a mask, no one will get COVID-19 according to the way this data is set up and analyzed. Ironically, the authors did divide the categories into "none" "some" "all" for mask use after the illness onset. No reason was given for combining the two categories. This is concerning since one person wearing a mask in a household of four would have questionable effect on disease transmission. It could be argued if the person was the primary case or the only caregiver for the primary case prior to hospital admission, there may be some benefit, but the problem with that scenario is that this statistic is covering mask use before the primary case had symptoms. It is highly unlikely the only person wearing a mask would fall into these two categories. Further, it would be impossible to replicate these results if that happened. 

In the yellow journalism that has encompassed the peer-review process, this paper has been cited again and again as well as in news stories. 

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."

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. 

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.

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

An Act of Treason

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." --U.S. Constitution

When a group of people gather and forcibly  try to prevent a public law from being executed, they are guilty of levying war against the United States. They can be tried under the Constitution. Under Washington law under RCW 9A. 76.020: (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

The inhabitants of CHOP/CHAZ clearly obstructed officers who were responding to an emergency. More than one member of this group did so, so it clearly fits under the levying war against the United States. I have also seen numerous pictures from inside CHAZ with "Insurrection" flags. This is not a "peaceful protest" but an attempt to take over the government. 

If our own leaders are going to look the other way, and support treason, they, too, should be arrested and tried for it. A peaceful protest (as protected under the Constitution) does not involve physical violence, property destruction, or theft. Every time we see an image from CHOP/CHAZ all we see is property destruction. That is not a peaceful protest that is protected by the Constitution, but a violent one. How long are leaders going to look the other way and allow violent traitors to continue their violence against our country?

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.

Why America Is NOT a Fascist Regime