Why Aren't We Sanctioning Israel for Political Interference

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

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

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

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

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

The response was so AI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

World War III--Vietnam on a Whole New Level

 As most of us go about our day, we are unaware of a little reported massive military provocation taking place. You see, the United States has convinced NATO nations to mobilize in a "training exercise." This mobilization is not about "deterrence" according to Lt. General Michael A. Loh, Director of the U.S. Air National Guard. It is about preparing our troops to go against a "great power." Can anyone guess what that "great power" is? The U.S. has in effect mobilized almost its entire military force to Europe and the Pacific.  

I am reminded of another king who wanted to show foreigners all his riches. In 2 Kings 20:12-19, King Hezekiah wanted to also display his power and riches to Babylon. The prophets told him afterward he was going to lose everything he showed them. And he did. 

I am shocked--although I shouldn't be--that Americans are blind as they were in the days before Vietnam. At that time, we weren't fighting in Vietnam to start with, we were just moving our troops to surrounding countries for support. When the Pentagon Papers were released, it was discovered the Gulf of Tonkin incident that made Americans unite and accept the entry into war was known about months prior to it happening. Now, we have documents that were released showing our Special Forces are already in Ukraine. 

I get that only a couple sentences are devoted to Vietnam in our history books, but how many times are Americans going to rally behind destroying a country with "weapons of mass destruction" and give up the lives of their children for war? How many times are Americans going to think they can easily win a war against the Taliban or North Vietnamese--or another "great power" for that matter? How many times are Americans going to believe if they lose this one country--Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine--"democracy" everywhere will fall? 

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

Our military isn't what it was. We have had years of spending cuts in all the wrong places. Those who join no longer get free meals and uniforms--soldiers pay for them from money automatically withdrawn from their checks. Anyone who has been in or followed things like the development of the F-35 knows the equipment we have doesn't work well and is being held together by ingenuity in some cases. In the 1990s, for example, soldiers were using Vietnam era rifles whose safeties didn't work. Although our military budget has ballooned since then, it goes for "developing" new toys, like the F-35, that have no real function because of all the bugs still not fixed after more than a decade and are more like a Ferrari that you don't drive to work everyday.

The Pentagon, who is our governments primary advisors about war, is also not what most Americans believe it is. It does not contain military personnel interpreting intelligence data. Instead, it is mostly staffed by CEOs from weapon manufacturers. These people leave their jobs, work at the Pentagon shaping war policy for a bit, and then return to them. 

That Congress is not aware--or doesn't care-- is a tragedy. Granted, most of them are so old they would not have children under 25 who could be drafted and they would simply send their grandkids to college or Canada to avoid it. You can get your degree as a lawyer and join the military during war without having to worry you will actually see combat. For most Americans, this isn't an option for our kids. We lost half-a-million soldiers during WWII. Worldwide there were 15 million soldier deaths and 38 million civilian deaths. Although WWII was fought in Europe and the Pacific, if we start WWIII, I can guarantee China and Russia will make sure we feel it at home. 

To end the Korean War after 3 million people died during the fighting, we split North and South Korea apart. How easy would it be to do that to Ukraine now, before the bloodbath includes our kids?

Ukraine Idiocy

 

Long before Tucker Carlson decided to speak out against the war with Russia our current government encouraged, I was speaking out against our idiocy. In fact, I started speaking out back when President Obama was in office and the United Stated funded the overthrow of the rightful UkrainianPresident who had been elected in a U.N. supervised election. We overthrew that leader just as we have helped to overthrow numerous leaders in sham “elections” throughout the world—and when our behind the scenes dirty deeds don’t work, we use military force.

I spoke out because we started this thing with Russia and then conveniently gave Hunter Biden a job. (He is unemployable in the United States because he was dishonorably discharged under an officer’s “general” discharge since he had done cocaine a few months after manipulating the system to ignore his previous cocaine use and age and let him into the military.) However, while in office, it seems the Former President Trump, who was trying to dig up dirt on Hunter and the current President, discovered that many upper-level officials were making dirty money in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the former President didn't see the danger or his precarious position because he had all this dirt--perhaps until it was too late. 

Just as COVID-19 “miraculously” appeared on the scene and gave the government a chance to make former President Trump look like a fool by contradicting him in an Orwellian manner: CDC et al.-don’t wear masks they can’t protect you…Trump-Don’t wear masks … CDC et al.-Wear masks! …Trump: But I thought masks can’t protect me from it, that’s what you just told me… CDC et al.: They protect others, not you, you idiot! President Trump will kill us if he stays President!

Now, I never liked President Trump, although I admit he did some good things, he also did some bad things. But replacing one big-mouthed idiot with another one is not a change. Unfortunately, Democrats made certain third party candidates did not have a chance in the 2020 elections.

The thing is that those in higher up positions who have dirty Ukrainian hands have realized that they have to destroy Ukraine if they want to cover their tracks… or at least let the Russians get the data hidden there so they can say the Russians faked it. But the problem is that they are willing to destroy America to protect their own skin. That is unacceptable. People need to vote for third parties and ONLY third parties this fall. We need to return our current feudalist society to a democracy. Keep money at home for those who need it instead of spending $40 BILLION on weapons we are giving to Ukraine under the guise they will "pay us back." You don't give away money to someone when your own children are hungry. You don't help another country fight a war when your own country is falling apart.

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

 Well, look at that, our modern scientists finally figured out what they knew right after the Spanish flu—lockdowns failed to stopCOVID-19 deaths and spread, and limiting gatherings might have increased COVID-19 deaths. Some scientists are also finally admitting that COVID-19boosters don’t help, either. Granted we have known for decades that mRNA shots are only effective for about 3 months in humans and we knew that although large numbers of antibodies were produced right after vaccination but those numbers did not effectively stop the virus after about 1 month—Guess what? we are working on our fourth booster one year on here in the West. With the serious side effects now finally being reported, we have to ask if these experimental non-vaccines that don't prevent you from getting or giving COVID-19 are worth it. I am not an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist. I never have been. But from the beginning, I have said and continue to say that what we are doing—lockdowns, masks, fake vaccines—is making the COVID-19 problem worse based on hundreds of years of science that we have thrown out the window—and now science is finally being able to publish the truth—albeit in a limited manner. Not that the world is listening--Kiribati just enacted lockdown and others are still in lockdown mode or just now coming out of it. The persons and countries who first suggested lockdowns should be made to pay the rest of the world for their un-scientific sins.

You want COVID-19 to go away, well, there is a simple answer—stop testing. If we tested for flu as much as we tested for COVID-19, the numbers and deaths from flu would be 10 times higher than what we have. But we don’t test everyone who walks into a doctor’s office for flu or mandate everyone who shows up to work with flu symptoms get tested for it before being allowed back to work. And that is what is really killing our economy and supply chains and hospitals and every other place. The problem is that the available jobs we have are being falsely created temporarily to meet demand while people are out sick with COVID—whether they are sick or not. Our actually job situation is in a much worse place than what they are telling us. In addition, stopping testing will make COVID-19 and the money and power that came with it disappear.  April is the next spike, let’s see if the CDC decides to relinquish its power over the world or not.

I knew all this was bunk from the beginning and questioned why the CDC, which I completely trusted prior to March 2020, was lying or at least misleading people from everything to the concentration of their bleach water to masks—but I have lost too many friends because of their bunk to say I told you so. Now, I know that a lot of people made money off of us—the poor who couldn’t afford to rent out an entire hotel during lockdowns or throw a party on their yachts or buy the best foods or get moved to the front of the health care line and get a private room in a hospital. The problem is that they have done it at the cost of our lives. I really don’t mind rich or privileged people having more things or opportunities than me. But when those people are getting their money by inflicting more suffering on the poor, I have a serious problem with that. It takes great restraint to not curse them as more of my unvaccinated friends are being denied medical care after getting COVID-19 from some hapless,vaccinated sheep who believed he or she could go out with COVID-19 symptomssince they received these fake “vaccines.” And frankly, I don’t really care if you are vaccinated or not—if you are sick, whether its from “vaccine” side effects or a minor cold—stay home. Also, keep in mind that mRNA vaccines were not used because they could be quickly developed- China developed 2 traditional vaccines in the same time it took us to pump mRNA and adenovirus vaccines out. They are being used because they are cheap. Name one time when something "cheap" worked as well or better than the real thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Fauci Has a Long History of Promoting Bad Drugs Despite Ineffectiveness and Deadliness

Why does everyone act as if Dr. Fauci was so amazing during the 1980s AIDS epidemic that continues today? 

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/aids/orgs/ACTUP/sf/1995/fauci.zap.flyer-05.06.95 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-and-fall-of-azt-it-was-the-drug-that-had-to-work-it-brought-hope-to-people-with-hiv-and-2320491.html 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD002039/HIV_while-azt-slows-down-the-progression-of-hiv-disease-in-the-short-term-the-improvement-does-not-last-and-it-does-not-increase-survival

33.5 Million on Unemployment and People Are Whining About Sweet Tomatoes Closing Permanently

I truly don't understand America. The disconnect between reality and the fantasy they seem to live in is vast. COVID-19 wasn't deadly. My husband tested positive, and the rest of my family, including me, probably have it, too. We are fine. It is somewhere between a bad cold and a mild flu. For me, it is more like a bad sinus infection, and I have heart problems, so based on all the hype I am still expecting to end up in the hospital. But we put people out of work. 33.5 million people have lost their jobs... for this. Did we stop the spread? No. Millions of people have had it in NY and LA without any or very mild symptoms. Or, they thought they had a sinus infection and pushed through it. People who stayed inside and isolated themselves as told were more likely to end up hospitalized in NY. Not the people who went about their business as best they could. It's over. The military is packing up and heading home without treating one patient in their makeshift hospitals. Trillions of dollars have been spent-- not on improving healthcare or access to health care for the poor, but on buying unused ventilators and paying unemployment benefits for people who had jobs. Still, people following the doom and gloom of the news ignore Georgia's real numbers that have drastically decreased since they fully opened, and cry about the second wave. These are the people who have been getting paychecks--the ones that find it easy to ignore the fact 15 million people still haven't received unemployment benefits after 2 months and some people are not getting anything or only fractions of what they were once getting. People are facing foreclosure and financial doom because the government forbid them to work. Worse yet, many of these people are still so terrified about COVID-19 that they will never come out of their homes and do not care that they are not buying food or meds they need because to them, dying of hunger and their current diseases is better than a small chance of dying from COVID-19. Our economy contracted by 4% in the first quarter, and people are brushing that aside as insignificant--despite the fact we were only closed 2 weeks in the first quarter and we are going to have been closed almost 2 months or more in the second quarter. They ignore that our ability to spend all those trillions on useless things is dependent on our GDP.

But, Sweet Tomatoes, the rich person's buffet, is closing. For that, they are all sad. Not one tear was shed when food bank lines extended down the street as far as could be seen. Not one "Wow, we will miss them" for the 7 million mom and pop businesses that may never reopen. No, a rich person's buffet is the only thing to get sad sentiments. We are sick, America, and it isn't with COVID-19. It is with apathy toward our fellow man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bad State of NY Healthcare Revealed with COVID-19

People are trying to make excuses for New York: It's a big city... It got COVID-19 from Europe, not China...

But the fact is, that NY just has lousy healthcare. I feel sorry for the people who live there. For comparison, California has 39.5 millionish people in the state and only 28,899 cases of COVID-19. 1021 people have died there from the virus. California was one the the first states to lockdown their entire state on March 20, 2020, and right after that, like every other place that has gone on lockdown, their new case numbers began a much steeper climb to the top. Testing was increased back around March 1, so that was not a good reason for rates to skyrocket, in my opinion, but it is what it is. We will never accurately see what COVID-19 is doing until we stop putting money into quarantine and start putting money into testing and improving healthcare access among the poor, especially those making 135%-180% federal poverty income levels, which basically screws them out of any state healthcare aid (even something like HIP-2.0, where they pay small premiums for Medicaid.)

But at least California, skyrocketing as it is, is not NY. NY has a population of only 19.5 million. A little less than half the population of CA. New York's numbers are disgusting, though: 126,383 as of the same day I took CA's stats. New York also has 8448 deaths. In one instance, it was reported they stored at least 10 COVID-19 dead bodies in a nursing home. Is it any wonder they have so many cases? Apparently, they are truly trying to re-enact the 1300s. They also have been blowing up the lungs of COVID-19 patients and increasing their chances of bacterial pneumonia by putting them on ventilators when all they need is an Oxygen mask. This is something the Chinese tried to explain to us in February in a published paper, but we didn't listen.

And now people are protesting these lockdowns and the governor of MI actually said they were blocking ambulances. Really? All the hospitals I have seen on a map of Lansing were outside the protest area. An ambulance driver would need to deliberately reroute through the area (out of the way) to get to them. Not surprisingly, I saw no ambulances blocked in any news footage. I also saw a news agency claim the protesters were racist and carrying Confederate flags... so I looked. The only thing I saw was blue President Trump flags, Don't Tread on Me Flags, and USA flags from 2020. Sorry. Neither of those resemble the Confederate flag. I did see a lot of camo... but really? Its Michigan. Do they have anything else to wear up there? Especially since the Governor probably has deemed clothing "non-essential."

Hey, here's an idea: If you don't want people to protest, why don't you give them something else to do, like, I don't know... WORK! I mean really, saying that people who choose to go out are going to get everyone who is huddled in their homes sick, is like saying a person without a vaccine can get a person with a (WORKING) vaccine sick. Apparently, most Americans have thrown logic out the door.

Something is a little fishy and it isn't the U.S.S. Comfort

The hospitals in New York are overrun with Covid-19 cases, so the Navy sent a ship to New York City, population 8.6 million to deal with all the non-Covid-19 cases... It is treating 20 patients. The mayor says everyone sick in New York has Covid-19 and that is why the ship doesn't have any patients... but there are 8.6 million people in the city. How can only 20 of them not have Covid-19... Prior to this article, everyone checking into the hospitals was apparently begin given a rapid test and only 20 of them did not have it and so they were able to go to the ship. Now, (probably because there is research showing that if you don't have symptoms you cannot spread it), the ship will just be taking people's temperatures to get them on board. Still only 20 sick people in all of New York don't have this disease right now... I smell a rat somewhere, but I don't think it's on the U.S.S. Comfort because it probably has Covid-19.

A Scientific Critique of "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand"

True, I am not a professional epidemiologist, but I am highly disappointed in those of them who support this farce of a paper. In fact, I am completely disgusted by my fellow scientists who are accepting this false model.

I have no doubt the authors crunched the numbers correctly, but all they did was recycle numbers from a previous paper on influenza. By doing this, they committed serious scientific fallacy with the numbers they chose. First, they used the transmission rates among children for influenza which are on the range of 9.8%. Why did they choose flu? Well, because by choosing the flu they didn't have to change their paper very much. We know Covid-19 is NOT highly transmissible among school aged children. Neither is SARS, which they could have used for their model. But SARS and MERS and other coronaviruses like Covid-19 have a transmission/ infection rate among school children of only 0.0098%. That's right, they increased the transmission rate by 1000%--is it no wonder they had such a breakout in schools through their model.

In addition, they assumed transmission would occur 1/3 of the time in schools, 1/3 of the time in the workplace, and 1/3 of the time in the community. Again, this is not even remotely what we see in Covid-19. A better model would have assumed 1/3 of the time in households, 1/3 of the time in hospitals, and 1/3 of the time in the community (including the workplace and schools). This is what we are seeing when we see that most of the country of Algeria has been infected by family members. Granted, if they used the real model, they would not have been able to encourage every country to lock down, since they would have quickly realized that lock down increases transmission when the primary method of transmission is households. Look at every country that has gone on lock down from the WHO situation reports. Five days after they go on lock down, their transmission rates double and then skyrocket--so much for flattening the curve.

This paper is so poorly written, that while the authors used the 5.1 days after infection before symptoms appear, they neglected to change the flu windows of transmission which begin 2 days before symptoms appear and continue only 5-7 days after symptoms appear. Covid-19 is currently thought to be transmissible through droplets from the first day of symptoms to about the 14th day of symptoms and through feces from the 9th day of symptoms to the 28th day of symptoms.

The fact they admit in the very beginning that lock downs did not help during the Spanish flu (and manage to leave out the fact that they also did not help during the swine flu or even the SARS outbreaks), they simply state that this is because during the Spanish flu they did not have pharmaceuticals or vaccines, just like now. Apparently, they did not realize (1) yes, aspirin saved many lives during the Spanish flu and is technically a pharmaceutical and (2) we are using pharmaceuticals such as antiviral drugs, respirators, and a myriad of other interventions including Tylenol(t), Aleve(t), and Advil(t). They also don't seem to care that the lock down has not worked before, but still claim it is needed today.

Health insurance companies are in business for one purpose: to make money. Why do we need them? Well, many would argue that it keeps other people from paying if you get sick and go to the doctor but can't afford to pay for it. This is a false belief. If I pay $120,000 into my insurance company over the course of my policy and I then end up in a hospital and run up $1 million of doctors bills, I have not paid for myself. No, the other people who have paid into the insurance company and not used their policies ended up paying for me.

If I could afford health insurance, I would certainly pay for it. So, perhaps I am being a little hypocritical. Why would I pay for insurance? Because it does spread out high costs over long periods of time, and I personally don't mind paying for other people. Every time we have had insurance in the past, we paid more for our insurance than we did for healthcare without insurance. This is a simple fact. Do we use healthcare as much without insurance- probably not. Surgeries are delayed until we can afford them. Still with a $6000 deductible, we would probably have to do this anyway. Visiting the doctor is never delayed when it is needed.

Insurance, in general, adds much too the cost of health care. First, the people at the insurance company have to be paid. Second, the people at the doctor's office who file insurance and work with insurance companies on costs and how much they are going to get for each procedure- have to be paid. Finally, insurance companies have been getting worse and worse about denying claims even for necessary items. That means than instead of simply filing paperwork once, time and money are lost in the appeal process. If anything insurance companies, including government plans like Medicaid and Medicare add to the cost of medical coverage.

Indiana: The State That DOESN'T Work

I laugh whenever I see the motto, "Indiana, a state that works!" Hopefully by now those of you who are democrats realize the world isn't going to end under the new President but merely move forward, same old same old. And those of you who voted Republican to repeal Obamacare are coming to the realization that the elected officials have no desire to get rid of Obamacare, instead you will be getting Obamacare 2.0 (or Trumpcare if you please). Next time maybe you will listen to me when I say both parties are the same and perhaps we could finally elect a third party in four years.

However, in the mean time, those who think the poor will be getting a logical healthcare plan that "works" like the one in Indiana had better be warned. Indiana's HiP 2.0 doesn't work. We currently have FIVE appeals going for different reasons because Anthem refuses to accept our payment or even acknowledge we have a payment due, the state refuses to use our 2016 income as our actual earned income for the past year and instead is projecting what we will be making in 2018 and using that, the state agencies have NO CLUE about the programs the state has and although my husband should have been transferred to a program that would protect him from the "You have insurance this month" "You lost your insurance this month" "You have insurance this month" ups and downs of regular HiP 2.0 health insurance, they have just dropped him from insurance altogether (this month), and finally, because although the State Insurance sent a letter to my son at our home address, they are denying him medication because they do not know where he lives. I kid you not. If the letter did not contain personal information, I would upload a picture of it.

Welcome to Obamacare 2.0 America. The biggest irony in this insurance craze is that people support everyone having insurance because when a poor person without insurance walks into a hospital and can't pay, the hospital has to raise prices and everyone pays for him or her. So here is the irony: With Obamacare and any other forced insurance program, if a poor person walks into a hospital (with state insurance) guess who pays for it? That's right- everyone else.

Poor people DO need insurance. That is the bottom line. Because they don't have a choice: they can't afford to pay for medical care and doctors don't take chickens or allow someone to do their laundry for them anymore in exchange for service. But everyone in America doesn't need insurance. If they can pay for medical care, let them do it out of their pockets. If they can't, then everyone else is going to be paying for it no matter what.

The 2016 American Election Tragedy

The biggest tragedy about this election is NOT that the Democrat candidate is Hillary Clinton (a person who has no regard for the laws of this nation and thinks she is above them) and the Republican candidate is Donald Trump (a person who is guaranteed to only make decisions that benefit himself)—although that is definitely a tragedy big enough to hang your head in shame when people ask if you are an American.

 

No, the biggest tragedy is that 90% of the people who step into the pole booth on Tuesday will believe that those are the only two candidates from whom they can choose. So depressing was that thought to me, that I almost considered not voting at all in this election. Now, for many of you, not voting is a common thing. For me, I have only missed two elections in which I could vote in my entire life. Last year, we moved on October 30—that means that I would have been voting for local representation in an area where I no longer lived if I had chosen to vote, so I didn't. There was also one election in an "off year" (we only vote for three years in Indiana and then take a year off) that was simply a referendum that I had no opinion about.

 

I have since revisited my decision not to vote. This is the year when a third party SHOULD be able to overturn the other two. The Republicans and Democrats have been in league with each other for years to the point where they have really stopped representing the ideals on which their respective parties were founded. They have long stopped representing "We the people…" The instead represent whomever gives their party the most money. This is not me, and I would be willing to bet it is also not you. The top two parties have also ensured that other parties do not make it on the ballots because they are the ones who write the laws for who can make it on the ballot. Some laws they have concocted are literally so restrictive in their wording it would be impossible to get on the ballot unless you are the Republican or Democratic nominee.

 

The top two are also broken because they allow ANYONE to vote in their primaries. That means I, as an independent who frequently votes across party lines, can go down and vote for the Democrat nominee without even remotely wanting to be in the Democrat party. In my state (Indiana), I do have to choose whether I want to vote for the Republican or Democrat and I cannot vote for both, but the one time I did it I was not given the chance to vote for the Libertarian, which tells me their primaries must be more selective. Some states allow you to vote in both the Democrat and Republican primaries (so I have heard). Why? Shouldn't only registered party members be voting in primaries? Yes, they should if you truly want a representative of that party.

 

However, as I said before, the Republicans and Democrats are only one party. A vote for one, is a vote for the other. Both support their top donors. I literally have somewhere in my garage a signed letter from a Senator stating he would not ever vote for something and then a printout showing he did in fact vote for that thing. In the next election, this senator advertised that he did not vote for that thing (but his voting record showed different). Thankfully, he is no longer in office, but I am pretty sure he is not alone in his deception especially since both of Indiana's current senators have advertised they would never vote for X and then turned around and voted for it! When was the last time you actually checked the voting record of the people you vote for?

 

So, I will be at the poles but I will be voting for a third party. There are actually some really SOLID choices this year. I am encouraging you (1) to please share this with all your friends and (2) please do a little research and check these people out; you may find you support their party beliefs more than you support your traditional Democrats or Republicans. DO NOT BUY INTO THE HYPE THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE TWO PARTIES. The reason that statement was first made historically is because by the nature of our elections (the person with the most votes wins even if the most votes are 25% of the total votes), only one or two parties will make the voting laws and thereby make it difficult for a third party to get in. That is the purpose of this post. If you live in a state that has barred third parties from being on the ballot, WRITE IN one of these candidate names below—unless you truly want to vote for Trump or Clinton (keep in mind though, a vote for Clinton may actually be a vote for Trump if he can get a felony tacked to her by January). 

 

LIBERTARIAN: Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) Libertarians believe that states (and ideally individuals) should make most of the laws governing America. They see the Constitution as the ultimate document for determining law. Traditionally, they support abortion, but they believe a person who disagrees with abortion should not be forced to pay for it (in other words they would remove government funding but allow it to remain legal). This candidate does have a vested interest in the marijuana industry (he used to be a CEO). He supports legalizing it at the federal level and allowing states to decide- similar to what our current president has supported. Despite what I have heard a lot of Democrats say, Libertarians are more aligned with their actual beliefs. (Democrats tend to tell me Libertarians are just Republican but this is not true.)

 

CONSTITUTION: Darrell Castle The constitution party supports the Constitution, but they see the Bible as another important document in determining law. This party is most aligned with what the Republican party believes. This candidate is pro-life. He believes the U. S. should exit from the U.N. and he would like to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Although the Constitution party is on the ballot in more than 20 states, plan on writing his name in if you want to vote for him.

 

GREEN: Dr. Jill Stein The Green Party believes in putting the environment first (big surprise, I know) and where the environment is silent, they tend to be Democrat in thinking. Their platform revolves around protecting the environment. This candidate supports public ownership of all energy sources, banning pesticides and other toxins, ending fossil fuel extraction that is disruptive to the environment, labeling and getting rid of GMOs. She would like to outlaw insurance but create national healthcare, and she supports any form of abortion.

 

There is actually a long list of write-in candidates that you can vote for, but these are the top three. A few others (who are on the ballot in 5-20 states) to research are:

 

(No party) Evan McMullin

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

Reform Party Rocky de la Fuente

Socialist Party USA Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik

Socialist Workers Party Alyson Kennedy (that is the official platform website, I couldn't find a specific webpage for her. Ballotopedia has a clearer presentation of the party platform but I don't know how accurate it is.)

What do you do when you are powerful and your son has a drug issue?

Hunter Biden (Vice-President Joe Biden's son) wanted to be in the military. It seems he gets whatever he wants because it took two waivers (one for his 40+ age and one for his previous drug history). Well, in June of 2013, he tested positive for cocaine and was discharged. No one knows if it was dishonorable or honorable. Normal people would have gotten a dishonorable discharge, but then most normal people over the age of 40 with a drug history would have never gotten into the military in the first place. Out of about 35 applicants, Hunter was one of 6 chosen for his naval commission.

Conveniently, the Ukrainian revolution (the one the U.S. supported despite the fact the previous president of Ukraine had been legally elected in an election that the U.N. oversaw) began in November of 2013. This was extraordinarily lucky for Hunter because once the dust settled, he was able to get a job with a Ukrainian company. Apparently, being a lawyer doesn't require random drug testing... too bad being President, Vice-President, Senator, or Congressman didn't require random drug testing.

The thing is, it would have been easy for the West to take half Ukraine so that Hunter would have a job and give the other half to Russia. But we can't accept that. In fact, we stirred up so much trouble that the U.S. was not invited to the Minsk agreement that has held for so long.

However, we did know what that agreement said- that no foreign troops were allowed in the combat zone. Well, that gave us a loophole to stir things up again- After parading our troops around Russia's boarder and generally ticking off the population in several countries- not just the Czech republic, but Germans were caught protesting U.S. troops as well. Well, we decided to really stir things up by sending troops into Ukraine to train the new U.S. backed Ukrainian government's Neo-Nazi mercenaries. Hope that one doesn't come back to bite us like Vietnam, Osama bin Laden, and Fast and Furious.

So, Russia is moving into Eastern Ukraine, too. If the U.S. has troops in the West, why shouldn't Russia have troops in the East especially since everything was going so nicely until the U.S. started flexing its muscles.

Even more disturbing to me is the fact that Europe- which is filled with scars from the last world war, is blindly looking the other way. Our economy is shot. If we can't get a war going somewhere, we are through. Granted, we are through if a war takes place on our turf- we need other people to buy our lousy F-35s to help support our spending habits. I don't know anyone in
America who thinks things are peachy keen here - even though the papers are constantly talking about how our jobs numbers look great, or the only reason we stopped spending in the winter was because it was exceptionally harsh (sorry, Europe, our winter was pretty normal and I am located in the MidWest). Yes, I realize you have linked your economy to ours, but really we are a sinking ship- are you really falling for all the camera tricks.

Anyway, it used to be our newspapers that were biased. After all, the president promised them special information if they would agree to only print what he told them to print. So far, they have done a pretty good job of following the rules. Now, however, it seems this writer in Scotland has figured it out. The rich ruling class (if you are American and don't believe we are only ruled by the rich, you really need to check out the backgrounds of those in power- like Mr. Biden) has screwed up the world economy through dirty deals. The economic collapse will be covered by a war- this time with the East. Sad, yes, but even sadder is that it is the only theory that makes sense. Why else would world leaders WANT a war with Russia and China?

Why do we keep buying, supporting, and reading news media that lies to us? Part I

The trend has been increasing over the past years, but I think it has reached its ultimate low (or high depending on how you look at it). Lets take the "budget reducing" ACA (Obamacare). Now, common sense would say that if you are implementing a widespread healthcare plan filled with subsidies, your budget would increase. However, everyone in the government has been telling news agencies: Oh no, this will "reduce the deficit." Now, Republicans have made their stand that it wouldn't do this- but really, did they say so because of research or because they just wanted to argue with Democrats?

The news could have taken the time to read through the entire act. They could have consulted numerous independent accountants (who also read the act) as to their opinions. Instead, they just printed: The ACA will reduce the deficit. And the people believed them. And the news media has continued to report on this consider these as examples: 2012-2013, 2013, and 2014. Oh, they stick the words in quotes (as I have done), but does that make them any less accountable when they do not present a balanced view and when they ignore doing any research or fact checking to support the presented view? Not in my book.

And look at what happened this year- exactly one year after the ACA required everyone to get health insurance or pay a penalty. Well, our deficit increased in March (when the IRS was probably paying out a lot of subsidies) by 54% over last year. In fact, even news agencies are beginning to print a slightly altered story. For example, this one says that Obamacare is costing less than projected (because fewer people signed up and because the insurance offered on the exchanges costs less than expected because it isn't as good as what employers used to offer); however, the DEFICIT IS STILL RAISING at a higher than expected rate. In addition, two of the major items contributing to this are Medicare and Medicaid. (Um... sorry but those are BOTH part of the ACA - did they suddenly forget about the Medicaid expansion and all the ACA battles over reducing the "doughnut" in Medicare?)

I continue to question- why do people believe this? Where are the facts?

Is President Obama Competent to Run the Country

The Ebola bungle is just one of many that have occurred due to the current leadership's inability to lead. Had Clinton or Bush been in office, a decisive, fast action would have occurred - in the end, it might have stepped on people's rights or even upset people, but ebola would not have spread.

President Obama, on the other hand, has bumbled around through the office. He just appointed Ron Klain - who has absolutely no medical training and is a lawyer and Joe Biden's former Chief of Staff (read: secretary)- to be in charge of the ebola campaign. Yeah, I feel much safer now knowing there is a secretary with no medical background coordinating our effort.

I have only lived to see six of our United States Presidents, but President Obama is by far the most arrogant - and the one who is least worthy of arrogance.

First, he decided to save the environment with "Cash for Clunkers" - seriously, as an environmentalist, I like to take things and recycle them - not destroy them. The oddity of this whole program was that if he really wanted to get gas guzzling "clunkers" off the road, he certainly would not have said the car had to be made in the past 25 years to apply for the program. But he did. A car could have been one year old and if it were a little more fuel inefficient than the newest model, it could be traded-in and destroyed.

Then he gave companies like Solendra tons of money to "improve green energy" and they folded. He did not start the "stimulus" program, but instead of giving money to national banks, he extended to international companies, like GE, who promptly opened factories in South America with it. How did this help our economy?

When the oil spilled in the Gulf, he refused European help in dealing with it. The European's had tankers that could have taken care of it quickly and effectively, but President Obama did not like them because the were less than 100% efficient. They were, however, the most efficient spill cleaner available anywhere on earth.

Then, there was the Affordable Care Act. The website, that wasn't, the extensions, the huge numbers promised and the 7 million (out of 300 million) insured - but many haven't been able to afford it and the current number is closer to 4 million. The Obama Administration declared success. The Obama Administration insisted this was not just a careful ruse to tax us, but the Supreme Court said it was, in fact, a tax and if it weren't it would be illegal. President Obama clearly stated (1) People would be able to keep their old insurance if they didn't like it - they couldn't, and I am tempted to say that more people probably lost there insurance than gained it; (2) People would not be forced to fund insurance that went against their religious beliefs - But they did until the Supreme Court struck that down, the law as written would have forced them to do it.

Then there is the current posturing - not just against Russia, but also China. Our relationship with our communist neighbors has sunk to Cold War lows. In fact, many would probably agree that President Obama and his family have the diplomacy of a fly at the table: Always landing right in your food and thinking they have every right to do so. The President has been mocked on his many vacations... err... diplomatic missions around the world. In fact, the French had to throw two different events because the President refused to be in the same room as Putin like a two-year old.

He has also, perhaps most surprisingly, returned race relations in the U.S. to pre-Civil Rights Movement levels. KKK membership (and here for example), is actually on the rise and they are certainly no longer as secret about it.

Unlike in pre-President Obama years, everywhere we go, we create civil unrest - Libya, Egypt, he pulled us out of Iraq (as promised) but now is back there fighting IS (or ISIS), he promised to pull us out of Afghanistan, but we are still there.

In fact, the only crowning point of his Presidency is that in his second term he ensured homosexuals the right to marry, despite what state laws said about it. He had promised this during his campaign, and the homosexual movement was pretty ticked that he hadn't done it in his first term, so I don't know if I should really give him a point for this. They would have de-funded the Democratic Party had he balked on it.

Now Hold On a Minute...

Okay - the IS has said it will continue KILLING our reporters if we keep bombing them. Of course they can do it because our military, with its current poor leadership, can't manage to mount a rescue operation to save them. At one time, the US NEVER gave in to terrorist demands. If that were our current policy, we would expect that that US would keep bombing them regardless.

But...

Apparently, we do give into terrorists now. Remember this? That's right, just a couple of months ago we released 5 TERRORISTS in exchange for 1 AMERICAN DESERTER. Despite what Hagel says, this was us giving terrorists their demands. And although the President tried to say that the war was over so it was time to exchange hostages, he knew at the time that there were SERIOUS issues in IRAQ and had probably already formulated a plan to go back and attack them again.

That's right, in June as IS was expanding and destroying the Iraq government's hold on parts of the country, our President, with full knowledge of this, released 5 terrorist prisoners in exchange for 1 American who probably was captured because he deserted - while at the same time planning to start another war with the people he was releasing.

Poroshenko: The Next U.S. Installed Dictator

It is important to note that although 300,000 have fled eastern Ukraine, they fled to Russia - not to Western Ukraine. Poroshenko willingly bombs and kills his own people, all under the aegis of the U.S. and E.U. If he can reclaim the area, he supposedly uses the "aid" he has received to help - but only in areas he has reclaimed for Ukraine. Now, he refuses to allow Russia to send aid.

Russia's aid is physical not money that the Ukrainian government can use funding its genocide. Russia wants to have the Red Cross accompany them, but we all know the Ukrainian government refuses to guarantee safe passage for anyone. In fact, it seems that once the Ukrainian government hears outside, objective witnesses are going to be anywhere in Eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian government then steps up its military actions in that area- to ensure any peacekeepers are killed.

Probably more disturbing is that the West has funded this war, but we refuse to send our troops in to help. Why not have NATO troops carry the aid to Eastern Ukraine? I certainly don't trust the Western Ukrainian government to do it. After all, they have had aid to help, but have not used it, yet. In fact, most of the "humanitarian" aid that has been given to countries during the past three decades has done nothing more than rot. If the U.N. truly cared about helping nations, they would make sure the food and supplies got to those who need it instead of sending it to governments to "hand out."