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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America--No Longer a Democratic Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Everyone Should Be Very Worried About the Interest Rate Drop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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... 

Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety

 Yes, previously when mRNA vaccines were given to animals, they developed blood clots from the vaccines. Since none of the new vaccines, including the ones with adenovirus instead of mRNA, have been tested for safety and effectiveness in a random control trial that produced significant results, no one should believe they are getting a safe vaccine. Nor should anyone believe they are getting a well-tested, effective vaccine. Effectiveness could only be determined if during the trials 30,000 people had come down with COVID-19 (vaccinated + placebo groups). Fewer than 180 came down with it. Further, trials were stopped one week after people received their second shots. Moderna specifically stated that it was going to stop all placebo groups as soon as it got FDA approval. This destroys the experiment and any data that may now come from it and is one of the worst kinds of vaccine fraud. 

So, when my friend's neighbor dies of a blood clot after getting the vaccine, my eyebrow raises. When European countries stop vaccines because of blood clots, I take notice. This fits with what we know about mRNA vaccines and it fits with a push to "get everyone vaccinated ASAP." Big guys have a lot of money invested in these vaccines, and with Facebook squelching all reports of adverse effects and VAERS - the nations data gathering system for vaccine side effects- not being talked about, it seems like they are trying to make as much as they can before the house of cards finishes collapsing.

The house of cards has already started to fall. Norway detected an unusual number of people who died from the vaccine. The EU has noted a spike in blood clots. The US noticed an uptick in allergic reactions and the FDA warned the vaccine makers about it. Still we plod on-- VACCINATE! VACCINATE! VACCINATE!

I have had a lot of vaccines in my life. I have never had my entire arm swell up nor have I had to miss a day of work because of them... granted the vaccines I have had spent decades being researched for safety and effectiveness before they were released. 

In the US, you cannot sue a vaccine maker, but you can be reimbursed for medical expenses by the US government if you have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The problem is that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental." They are not FDA approved--nor have they undergone the necessary trials to become FDA approved. Why would they need to? They were given emergency use status and the companies not only have no liability for their products but also are being promoted everywhere using Nazi propaganda techniques. They will never get FDA approval because they are neither safe nor effective. If they were safe and effective they would not have stopped the trials prior to achieving significant results that would have given them FDA approval. 

It is one thing to have an experimental vaccine available for those in the population who wish to take it or participate in the experiment. It is quite another to force an experimental vaccine on everyone in the World. So far, it hasn't been forced on anyone. But the vaccination passports in development should scare us all. There are many diseases more deadly than COVID-19--why haven't we had passports for any of those? Finish testing the vaccine and have significant results. THEN countries can decide if they want to force it on people and provide them with "Vaccine passports."

Time to Break up the Monopoly

 This article should scare people. Facebook has forced the government of Australia to back down (and not the other way around). When a company can directly control legislation, there is a problem. 

The biggest problem is that Facebook has grown too big and no government will now stand up to it because it can block government content, news content, and any user content it wants to block. That means we, the people, are the only ones left to stop them.

This shouldn't be difficult, but unfortunately, Facebook has designed and perfected its platform in such a way that it has not only become addictive, but also has become the sole mediator of what information you receive. They have done this to the point that now they can fill your feed with garbage advertising and you still will scroll through it. 

So, it is time, we leave Facebook. Ideally, the majority of the world would quit in protest, but I have learned that ideals don't work for most. Even I would have a problem completely cutting it, and I frequently take week-long or month long breaks from it. So, the solution I propose is branching out. Dedicate one day of your week to exploring other social networks and forbid yourself from getting on FB for that one day. 

If enough people migrate some of their time from FB, FB will feel it. In addition, you might find another network you like better than FB. In addition to Pinterest, LinkedIn, Goodreads, and Blogger (which I already use), here are some options I am planning to try: WT Social, Parler, Mastodon, MeWe, Ello, Steemit, and Diaspora. 

I might also try VK, but I don't like that the Russian Government is now controlling it in the same way that I don't like how Facebook is being controlled by American politics and Zuckerberg's greed. For the same reason, a site from China like Sina Weibo is not appealing (in addition to the fact I have to use Google to translate the pages since my Chinese character recognition is minimal). I also don't like Discord because it limits your content only to those in your group and it is a very different medium than FB. 

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

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

I have gotten many vaccinations in my lifetime. However, I have never had to miss a day of school or work because of it. Entire schools are closing down because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work. Hospitals are rotating who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects. 

In the trials, 1 in 10 people had serious side effects from the vaccine after receiving the second shot. These were not the standard "mild" flu-like symptoms, these were serious issues affecting major organs. The younger the person, the more likely these side effects were. 

At last check, 12,000 adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported. For comparison, 48,000 were reported across all the vaccines given in 2017 for the entire year. In one month, the COVID-19 vaccine alone has reached 1/4 that. More disturbing, about 2,000 of these adverse events were deaths. 

Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to this paper), but even the number of allergic reactions is greatly increased. Normally, across all vaccines, 1.31 people out of 1 million people develop an allergic reaction. 92 people per 1 million have an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. 

Further, we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death. The vaccine could even increase death rates. If it causes deaths without preventing deaths from COVID-19, it should not be used. The studies that should have been done for effectiveness, have not been done. According to the vaccine makers, this is because it would have required a study on 30,000 people. They did the study on 125 people to save time. Shame on them. 

Further, there are (at last count) 4000 variations of COVID-19 that have already been "discovered." About 1000 of these exist in the United States. Are you going to take 4000 vaccinations that cause you to miss two days of work? 

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

We have no idea how long antibodies to the vaccine lasts, even if it is effective against COVID-19. If it is anything like previous mRNA vaccines, you will be covered for less than 6 months. Are you willing to take 4000 vaccines every 6 months to prevent a disease that kills less than 3% of the people who get it, when the vaccine itself kills people--especially when each vaccine can cause you to take 1-2 days off work because of their "mild" side effects? 

The vaccines are dangerous and might not be effective, just as wearing masks and closing schools and businesses is dangerous and might not be effective. The problem is that vaccines could cause deaths two years later--so we have no clue just how dangerous this one could be without proper testing. Forcing or requiring anyone to get one is immoral. 

The real questions are: How long is the news going cover for big pharma COVID-19 vaccine makers? How long are people going to to look the other way? Will the news media companies be held accountable for their lies? 

Shame on Trump for pushing for a vaccine in one year--it did not save his Presidency because the news refused to report on it prior to the election. Shame on the Dr. Fauci, for pushing everyone to get a vaccine, while acknowledging it will not protect anyone. 

If you choose to get vaccinated, that is your choice. Just make the choice understanding the vaccine has serious side effects and may not protect you or anyone else from COVID-19.

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.

Business Insider Continues the Misinformation

 I saw a Business Insider article in my RSS Feed that Sweden had the most deaths in 2020 on record since a famine decades ago. They seem to attribute this to not locking down for COVID-19. The problem is that if you look at the WHO situation report this is the real picture that unfolds:

Sweden (which did not lock down and cause economic damage to its people) had 573 deaths per million from COVID-19 so far this year. 

From that same report: 

Italy (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 585 deaths per million.

The UK (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 609 deaths per million.

Spain (which locked down and caused serious economic damage to its people) had 612 deaths per million. 

Locking down did not prevent anyone from dying. Articles that only look at one country and try to make an example of it, without comparing it to others are not telling you the truth. 

Right now, Sweden's unemployment rate is 6.1 percent, similar to what it was before the COVID-19 experiment. The USA has a recorded rate of 10 percent and we have been out of lock down in most states for months. Sweden's unemployment rate remained even while ours went up to almost 20%. 

In the United States, we will not be able to examine how badly COVID-19 affected us until 2022. The people at the CDC are counting on that. They know real research takes time. They do not want you to see how badly we hurt ourselves without stopping COVID-19 until you can no longer do anything about it. 

Learn more in my book:

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

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.

According to the FDA, that mask the CDC is requiring you to wear isn't protecting you from disease.

The CDC states here we must wear cloth face coverings because they may prevent the spread. It recommends:

 "CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.  Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.

The cloth face coverings recommended are not surgical masks or N-95 respirators.  Those are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance."

However, the FDA gives guidance here (here ) for the non-surgical masks which the CDC is telling everyone to wear: 

"Masks for non-medical purposes are not medical devices and are not regulated by the FDA.

Under the policy, the FDA believes face masks not intended to provide liquid barrier protection [i.e. non-medical masks] do not create such an undue risk where:

• The face masks include labeling that:
  • Accurately describes the product as a face mask (as opposed to a surgical mask or filtering facepiece respirator);
  • Includes a list of body-contacting materials (which does not include any drugs or biologics); and
  • Includes recommendations and general statements that would reduce the risk of use. For example, recommendations against use:
    • In any surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid, bodily, or other hazardous fluids may be expected;
    • In a clinical setting where the infection risks level through inhalation exposure is high;
    • In the presence of a high intensity heat source or flammable gas;
• The face masks are not intended for any use that would create such an undue risk. For example, the labeling does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral protection, infection prevention or reduction, or related uses, and does not include particulate filtration claims."

In other words, the FDA says that it is okay to manufacture and sell these non-medical masks, but they cannot protect you from infection and must be clear about stating this. So, why is the CDC recommending we all wear them? 

Think about it. If a cloth mask won't protect you from symptomatic transmission, why would anyone, including the CDC, think it would protect you from asymptomatic transmission?

To further muddy the waters, the FDA is now allowing millions of non-surgical (but surgical looking) masks to flood into the country from China. None of these masks protect anyone from disease, but they are being marketed as such because of the CDC guidelines, which imply they do. How many of our healthcare workers are now wearing cloth masks that do not protect them from anything? How many of our healthcare workers are wearing cheap, surgical mask imitations that will not protect them from liquids (i.e. the droplets that transmit the disease).