Culture Watch – The Compilation !




   It can be challenging: carrying a regular column about the popular culture – and relating it to our views on traditional living. Maybe a ground rule will help where we make an important differentiation. We are NOT at odds with individuals who happen to practice any type of ‘alternative’ lifestyles. But we ARE (severely) at odds with the people who are trying to orchestrate these ‘alternative’ lifestyles onto all the rest of us. This latest ‘orchestration’ effort involves a popular program that I have always liked: The American Idol.

   But first: there is a back story here. The American Idol show used to have it exactly right. It involved nothing, either pro or con, in regards to any lifestyle issues (or any other issues for that matter either). There was nothing either pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gay liberation or very much of any pro or anti at any significant issue. And this is what I believe in for the entertainment industry: it is their job to do “Let me entertain you” rather “Let me tell you (and your children) how they should think”. I favor entertainment just doing entertaining and staying out of the “tell you how to think” business.

   However … it turned out that the demographics of the American Idol show usually resulted in a straight/somewhat religious/All-American Boy or Girl type often being the winner. There was no one pushing anything one way or the other – it merely worked out this way on a somewhat regular basis. So … at some point, this became unacceptable to the Cultural Elite/Cultural Diversity types. Beginning at two seasons back from the present one, they pressured the shows’ producers into going down their Culturally Diverse rabbit hole with them.

   Obviously, the first thing that will happen is that one of the contestants will be set up to act as the official Gay Liberation Advocate for the season. Next, other types of performers were given the axe, not for a failure to perform, but for a failure to make a culturally diverse outcome. Up until then, every season had always had a fair mix of everything. And, for that matter, Clay Akins and Adam Lambert turned out to practice homosexual lifestyles – but it was strictly a private matter and was not an in-your-face advocacy effort on behalf of “THE CAUSE”.

   But not anymore. The new Culturally Diverse look began with a lesbian named Destiny for the second season back. Next, it was a Jeremiah Lloyd Harmon for last season – where his every single appearance revolved (exhaustively and one-dimensionally) around his homosexual lifestyle rather just having him perform.

   The shows’ judges were then pressured to boost these candidates as much as possible. And (maybe) were even pressured to reserve a ‘save’ for Harmon in the last season. And what about this season? When this season came around I was waiting to see if this was, indeed, a pattern – and it is. The most recent American Idol presentation just introduced the new Gay Liberation Advocate to be this season’s candidate for this task.

   But the Lord still controls all (and we still have some controlling ability also) so not to worry. Modern technology has the ability to do an Enhanced Block – one where you don’t have to block an entire show but merely the parts of it that go into the “tell you how to think” mode – while retaining the rest of the show to watch. It is not out yet but we still have what I would call a Manual Blocker.

   I always record my shows before watching them. I then use my “Fast Forward” button as my manual blocker – I just go through the “tell you how to think” parts without watching them. And for that reason – I just need some down time for diversion not to be told how to think.

   Now, I have no ill will against Destiny, Harmon or even the latest chosen delegate for the Gay Lobby. My “ill will” (such as it) is just against being told how to think by the entertainment industry. That is not their calling – and is the proper preserve for parents and parenting. Their “assistance” is not needed. What say you?


   A post-season update. It was the usual push and shove match where the producers, apparently, met some resistance. The judges allowed the Cultural Diversity cut to happen: only one of the All American Country Girl singers was allowed to go forward. But they refused to do it themselves – they forced another week to go by and had the country make the cut with a popular vote.

  They did the pro forma cut of the Kathy Lee Gifford-ish type of Gospel Girl singer that used to be allowed to go forward. But gave no explanation for it. Luke Bryan just got the maneuver out of the way as fast as possible – and with an obvious displeasure involved in his having to do so. But then there was the push back.

   The Designated Gay Advocate was ultimately cut, by the judges, rather than being allowed to go forward. And the show ended with a type of Revenge of Kathy Lee – the winner of the contest was, ultimately, a strong Gospel Girl type in her own right. And there was a twist: the ignominously cut Gospel Girl sang a Lauren Dagel song and then got the boot. But then Lauren Dagel was brought back, by the winner, to perform a song with her!

   However … the pressure lobbies may ultimately have prevailed through their rule-or-ruin tactics. The show, after the back and forth resistance, was then (chronically) truncated into nothingness. I, personally, got little entertainment value from the last couple of weeks – where the show was given a bum’s rush off of the air in as fast a way as possible. But that is to be expected.

   Don’t be confused about what is happening around you. It is not the type of topic we will discuss in this column very much but the lootings and the lockdowns are more of the same. It has nothing to do with your health or legitimate protest. It is a case in point like the Culture Wars – it is either rule or ruin. If they can’t run the country they will gladly ruin it in the hopes of, somehow, inheriting what’s left over out of the ashes.


   I will get back to the physical virus that is currently threatening us – and in the very next article that follows this one. I just feel that we still need to maintain our spiritual lives. And even if we should feel that our physical one is in danger.

   What follows is a good news/bad news story. It is also something that demonstrates my concept of a spiritual ‘virus’ and how they tend to work. I am referring to the final episode of The Bachelor.

   It featured a woman (Madison) who stood up for traditional values and, to give credit where credit is due, she was treated respectfully. However, there is the issue that she had to contend with. It is an issue that is not just bad news. But very, very bad news. For there is an issue with both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette that has to be made a point of.

   It is that these shows are promoting what is, ultimately, a glorified gang bang. (Multiple people are given the same key to an overnight ‘fantasy’ suite). And, what’s more, is that this is the process being used to decide a final cut for … who you want as your monogamous partner(?) – and for the rest of your life(?).

   Even apart from what is actually being normalized by these shows, isn’t it also rather contradictory? I am supposed to choose a life time monogamous relationship by going through a quick round of multiple sex partners – as a final cut type of a mechanism? Really?

   This is why these types of things work almost like a virus. If one would just stop, for even a minute, and do the basic logic of the matter – then what I am saying is obviously true. And yet, like it is somehow invisible, the obvious abnormalities that are involved in this show have gone totally mainstream and without even being spoken out against. Consider:

   Scenario #1: I am given a key to a room where I immediately have sexual relations with three different women – and one immediately after the other. Does anyone question that this is the proverbial gang bang?

   Scenario #2: Let’s say it is not an immediate swing through all three of the different women. Let’s say that between 9 pm and 10 pm I have a sexual dalliance with a woman #1. On the same night, after she leaves, it is between 10 pm and 11pm that I have a physical relationship with the second woman and the third one is done similarly between 11 pm and 12 pm. But does this really make the basic situation (of Scenario #1) somehow different?

   Scenario #3: I, again, go through all three women but do each one in turn on a different evening. So… in Scenario #1 I allow only, say, a minute between doing three different women and it is grotesquely amoral. In Scenario #2, I allowed one hour between the three different women so it becomes less immoral(?). And, since by Scenario #3 I am allowing 24 hours between each successive round, it is now in the realm of moral acceptability and is no longer a gang banging? (And what Bible verse does that come out of?)

   And, speaking of the Bible, there is no Bible banging involved here either – as can easily be demonstrated. If, that is, one would stop for even a minute to do the basic logic here. Let’s say that I am in a room full of married men who are all complete atheists.

   I then ask how many of them did a scheme similar to The Bachelor as a part of proposing to their then girlfriends. That is, that they got their then girl friends to agree to a ‘final cut’ arrangement involving two other women. And, this being done, as the prelude to their having gotten married.

   I maintain that, no matter how big a room full of atheists we might be talking about, that there would not be a single instance of this happening. Even in a room full of total atheists. Moreover, you could probably question each one of them and find out that 1) not only have they never done such a thing but that 2) atheists not withstanding, even the thought of doing such a thing has never even occurred to any of them in their entire lives. And this would be in a room full of atheists.

   Yet, we have all just spent several seasons (of watching exactly this on TV) and right before God and the whole world all looking on. And it is normalized and mainstreamed and is never even spoken out against. Very weird when you think about it. And that is just how these spiritual ‘viruses’ work – in a way that is very weird.


   This blurb especially needs me to do a reminder. There is what I call a differentiation: nuancing a point rather than getting involved in broad brush strokes. I remind the reader of one such nuancing I have done before: our concern is not that someone, somewhere is practicing a homosexual lifestyle in his own private life. It is the question of why do so many people (especially in the entertainment industry) have this hair up their posterior fixation to orchestrate it onto all of the rest of us?  

   And another differentiation here: forget that it is even about something sexual of any sort (and whether what they are saying is pro, con or indifferent) – why this fixation on influencing how every one else is supposed to think in regards to anything? People watch television in an attempt to have some down time in the privacy of their own homes – not so they can be told how to think.

   Whatever their particular agenda – or whatever pro or con positions that they may be taking – this entire effort is still obnoxious, disrespectful and inappropriate. Now we can get down to the particulars of this segment.

   Left strictly to nature, only 1 to 2 percent of the populous would be caught up in these types of life situations – the ‘alternative’ lifestyles, I mean. Yet in the latest TV lineup, you only have 1 to 2 percent of the shows that DON’T have homosexuality as a central focus. So what do you think the odds are that this is what we referred to above – just another round of the entertainment industry doing a tell-you-how-to-think exercise?

   And, I will put it bluntly about this particular exercise for this particular season. This is, and in an absolutely unbelievable way, the most dysfunctional season from the entertainment industry that they have ever done. I will give one example and then get the point of  “So what is the plan?” I refer you to the new offering “Council of Dads”.

   This was billed as the type of old school show that we all remember fondly. Wholesomeness, family emphasis and especially needed in today’s world, fatherhood. They even had a very powerfully done scene with a hard core type of father figure laying the law down to a rebellious teen. He even finished his dissertation with an enormously insightful observation that put the teen back down into the world of normalcy again. But the problem: why was there a need for a 4 year old cross dresser to be introduced?

   Exactly how did something like this need to be introduced into the plot line to develop things like, say, the driving-the-truck scene laid out above? First, they still had to do the obligatory gay character and you already start to feel that you have been bait and switched (again). Then, when you get near the end, they had a totally incoherent scene where a 4 year old cross dresser gets comingled in with a funeral, which then leads to a totally inane and indecipherable discussion about …… what??? 

   So … what’s our move? For the future, I want to re-introduce the idea of helpful technologies (and legislation) that will do nothing to violate anyone’s First Amendment. I have mentioned before that it is now easy for all programs to be encoded with filtering and ways to do multiple choice programming. That is, you can watch a version of a program that has the sensitive sexual themes and materials in it – or watch a version of a program that does not.

   People can still produce any kind of programming they want to produce, people can still watch any kind of programming that they want to watch. While this filtering process will still give you an ‘out’ so you can still watch programming that you might enjoy – without having to go along with this (a 4 year old cross dresser) type of a ride. But we still have to deal with the right here and right now.

   Our number one moral obligation, for right now, is to ensure that ABC, NBC and CBS have the most crapped-out runs, on their new shows, that they have ever had. Stop and think for a moment: they are pushing something as an old-school, fondly-remembered type of a show. And, yet, the best they can do (in this type of a promotion) is to have an obligatory gay character – and then throw in a 4 year old cross dresser to boot? Then what is the whole point?

   It is in our own self-interest to insure that, when people are this obnoxiously pushing something at us, that they have the absolute (pardon the term) crappiest season that has ever come their way. Such an outcome is simply in our own self interests.


   There was a true story about a 6-year-old girl who (presumably) was an aviation whiz. It was her parents who endlessly pushed this story. The news articles talked on and on about it until it came to an end. Specifically, a flaming wreck of an ending – one that killed both the girl and the responsible adult who should have been the one at the controls of the airplane they were in.

   What occurred was a very ‘modern’ type of parenting that is becoming all too frequent these days. A Munchausen-by-proxy I guess it is called. This is where you let your children (or even encourage them) to go off into a fantasy world – and be proud of your parenting for being so permissive. Except that it may ultimately end in a flaming wreck.

   Reality occurred when someone, who should have known better, allowed her to take the cockpit in a real airplane. She immediately wrecked the plane because she had absolutely no idea what she was doing. Nor should she have – she was just a 6-year-old girl!

   By analogy, this is so typical of ‘modern’ parenting and/or the modern world it makes one, proverbially, wanna holler. This is the one phenomenon that I regard as the most perverse about today’s world. We treat people who are supposed to be full grown adults just like they are little baby children. (But I do not WANT to have to make tough choices! I don’t like it! I don’t like it! – Poor Baby.)

   Then we take our citizens that really are just little baby children – and treat them like they are supposed to be full grown adults! We are leaving our children either to the control of third parties (who, like the little 6-year-old girl, was not being properly supervised by same) or being left to their own devices all together. We neglect them in some cases: young children having their own TVs in their own rooms, their own cell phones and internet access without supervision, etc. And, in other cases, we simply refuse to fight for them against outside forces even when we are aware of these forces.

   The most inexcusable case being what I would call the increasing normalization of pedophilia. And a seeming lack of resolve by a lot of people to even be contesting these matters. Below I am placing two links to two other articles (read them after you have finished reading this one):

My remarks to the king county library system 10-30-19

My remarks to the king county library system 12-18-19

   I have these two links up because they relate to my own personal fight in this battle. I will also use some material from these articles. But first I suppose I should define my terms. I am putting a warning out about pedophilia so … how would I define it?

   First, pedophilia does not have to involve an actual physical act – being personally conducted by someone who is a pedophile. Anyone who has an inordinate interest in sexualizing under-aged citizens is still a pedophile. And any under-aged person who winds up damaged by such a process is still a victim of pedophilia.

   This is important because this is rapidly becoming the ‘in’ thing now amongst the culturally elitist types. Underaged children are now the main front for being proselytizing into the various ‘enlightened’ (as they see it) new outlooks. But before I get into some actual examples, I will make a couple of warning notes for the reader:

   1) The practitioners of this new proselytizing effort will try to make rationalizations for their behavior. But they are distinctions that do not amount to any real differences. For example: their type of content is not being flashed on the internet to people with personal perverse proclivities. However, it is still winding up going out to the general public – but dressed up as advocacy on ‘issues. So, to them, that somehow makes it stop being pedophilia but simply an advocacy forum.

   2) The practitioners of this new proselytizing effort will try to confuse the issue with questions about motives. They will gladly concede that doing a sex act to an underaged person (or trying to make money from such people) is certainly pedophilia. But, to them, if I am simply involving underage children in some generally sexualized type of material (or pushing some generally sexualized behavior on them) it is not necessarily pedophilia. Because it could simply be a part of proselytizing them into more ‘enlightened’ views on sex acts. Therefore, as they will rationalize it, these other people might be perverts but not them.

   The actual reality? It does not matter what your motives are or what medium you use. If the acts that you are doing are pedophiliac acts, then you are still a pedophile.



   The first type of acts that concern me are that chronically underage citizens are being exposed to sensitive sexual materials and themes.

   Case 1) The King County Library System in Washington State.

   This is a case where chronically underaged citizens were exposed to men wearing women’s clothing. I noted, in a presentation to this library system, the mass confusion that exists in California (where 25% of all minors are describing themselves as being, in some way, gender confused).

   Now California has not only been what some would describe as a ‘progressive’ state but what I would describe as an obnoxiously ‘progressive’ state. When it comes to sexualizing one’s minors California has been going to it at full throttle and for an exceptionally long time. And what is the outcome – it is what I alluded to in my presentation.

    I asked, “So what causes a rare confusion (gender confusion) to become such a rampant one? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So, what does leave left?” (If not the rampant proselytizing?)

   The outcome, as previously noted, is that California’s minor children are horrifically destabilized. Nearly a quarter of their pre-teen citizens have no idea what their gender identity is and/or what to do about it even if they should figure it out. To allude back to a 6-year-old girl being given the pilot’s controls in an aircraft.

   You cannot simply throw out all possible sexual themes and materials (wholesale) to chronically underaged children. And then expect them to be able to field it and handle it properly. They are not meant to pilot their own way through this type of material – at that age – any more than they are meant to pilot an aircraft. Age appropriateness matters.

   So, what is the prevalence of this type of social manipulation among our children in America? It is chronic and is getting more chronic by the day and hour. It would be bad enough were it just one library system in one county in America – but is much more widespread than that.

      Case 2) Public School Systems throughout the country

   For decades, public school systems have sought to usurp parenting on this whole sex acts business. Propaganda books (designed to groom children’s acceptance of homosexual behavior) is often written at the second and third grade levels. This material has also been in circulation for many years.

   The State of Washington just attempted to make gender identity education mandatory for all students – starting at the 6-year old in Grade 1. And this is just the beginning. The organization is called the National Education Association. And you could say that its members have long since been ‘groomed’ – to support the grooming of chronically underage children regarding sensitive sexual themes and materials.

   Again, to those of you who have followed my writings, I take the moderate position of the two-fold test:

   1) If you ARE the biological parent (or legal guardian) of a child then: your number one responsibility is to be the one who is in charge of the sex acts business – and how your children are to deal with such matters or

   2) If you ARE NOT the biological parent (or legal guardian) then: your number one responsibility is to shut the hell up and to stay out of it. This is a quite simple, moral clarity-ish approach to take on this matter. I recommend that the National Education Association should start ‘grooming’ its members to adopt this standard rather than their current ones.

   The second type of acts that concern me are that chronically underage citizens are being involved in sensitive sexual materials and themes. No nitpicking needed here. This is cut and dried pedophilia regards of whether you do the specific sex acts to people in this category or not.

      Case 1) Tragically, about the most egregious case (and thus deserving a unique highlight) is one that was hosted by a Jenna Bush Hager. And done on her nationally syndicated morning show.

   A series of child molestation segments (which is what they actually were) called “Speaking Out Loud” were recently hosted by Jenna Bush Hager. They described small children (under 8 years of age) being aggressively sexualized into the new ‘fad’ thing of gender identity. And the interviewing was done favorably (by Jenna Bush Hager) towards the persons doing it.

      Case 2) Here I will go back to the TV program that I highlighted in the last Culture Watch segment. The object of the last Culture Watch segment was the new show “Council of Dads”.  

   So far, I have been in something of a nebulous area on some of the cases I have talked about. I do, and without apology, regard any type of sexualization of children as a form of pedophilia. And, by this standard, pedophilia is already a virtual norm in society now.

   The cultural elitist types have even made the chronically underaged crowd the focus of their proselytizing efforts. The numerous examples above are just a small sample of the widespread nature of this very unnatural phenomenon. But the new “Council of Dads” did take it to the next (even prosecutable) level – and while you watched it from your living rooms.

    A reminder from the last Culture Watch: The incident this segment is referring to is the 4-year child running around as a cross dresser. And there is only one way that you could have watched a 4-year-old cross dresser on your TV screens. It is from a producer enlisting an actual 4-year-old to play the part. (It was not, say, a 40-year-old done up to miraculously look 36 years younger).

   Secondly, since a 4-year-old cannot write scripts, they would have to have been directed into acting out some sexually sensitive and explicit scenes under someone else’s personal supervision. Next, the only way that you could have watched it is through them then airing it out to an audience.

   In short, you just witnessed a criminally prosecutable act of child abuse being done on your television screens. And have, apparently, not had it register yet – at what you have just watched. And, if you have followed my other columns, this is not the first time for this type of cognitive dissonance.


   I have always, and will continue to always, differentiate between private behavior and the orchestration of behavior, publicly, by the entertainment and education industries. They are two totally different issues. The one you deal with in Christ’s gentle way: you let the person know that you may disagree with their personal act but that you have no disagreement with them as a person.

   The other case (where someone is trying to orchestrate it on to the rest of society) you deal with in some of Christ’s more forceful ways: the use of a whip and the driving of unethical people out of your temples comes to mind. But this involves returning to a society of moral clarity – so that you can make these types of necessary distinctions. We do not currently have that type of moral clarity.

   That is why we keep being in these types of situations: the public is literally, physically watching various acts being done – right before their own two eyes on a television screen. But are still not able to let it register, psychologically, about what they are watching being done right before their own two eyes. We physically watched an ongoing, prosecutable act of child abuse while letting it just fly over our heads.

   In Culture Watch – II, I demonstrated that a major, popular TV show involves doing a gang bang – but, apart from this column here, it seems to be just flying over our heads. In Culture Watch – III, I laid out the Entertainment Industry’s most recent deliberate and intentional Indoctrination/Proselytizing/Tell-You-How-To-Think campaign. It also seems to be just flying over our heads. And look at the in-your-face blatant-ness of it:

   If you do not think that is what is going on, then how can there even be predictability? I noticed Edie Falco having a type of butchish look in the ads for “Tommy”. So, based on this TV season’s track record, I assumed (before even watching it) that she was going to be portrayed as a lesbian. And I was then proven right when I watched it.

   My wife and I recorded “Beauty and the Baker” to watch later. In the ads for it, it showed the main character having a brother and a sister.  So, based on this TV season’s track record, I assumed one of them was going to be portrayed as a homosexual character. (I was wrong – they BOTH were portrayed that way.)

   In all cases, in every new show for this TV season, they all revolve around homosexuality. And to the point, as I demonstrated above, of even being predictable. Thus, your television set is now engaged in a full throttle homosexual mode to deliberately and intentionally indoctrinate/proselytize/tell you how to think about sex acts.

   But how often are you even hearing anyone make any noise on these types of matters? You will hear about it here – but where else? That is the problem when you live in a society that is minus a sense of moral clarity. It is not just a case of anything goes but that EVERYTHING goes – and without even any protest.

   So … we can close out this Watch segment with one last brief return to the “Council of Dads”. Again, you – literally – watched a criminally prosecutable act of child abuse being acted out on your television screen in front of you. And how much protesting have you done about it since then? Do you get my point yet? This is what happens when you live in a society that is minus a sense of moral clarity.

   The proselytizing of chronically underaged minors, the whole utter perversion where we leave chronically underaged minors to fend for themselves in endeavors that are not even remotely age appropriate. While we (the – supposed – adults) want the government to take care of our every need so that we can be treated just like little baby children. I think we all need to get some clarity, folks.


(A good first act of clarity is to immediately remove “Council of Dads” from your viewing list. This country has a long way to go towards moral clarity – but that is at least a beginning.)



   Well, we have heard that a leader in favor of life, religious values and the traditional family unit is getting a divorce. If true: then we are not hypocrites. Getting a divorce is just as damaging to traditional families – and is just as unscriptural – as having a homosexual relationship or doing an abortion.

   Also, in my full length article, The Confused Generation, I blamed a lot of the current generation’s moral confusion on us (the older generations) inconsistent example and lack of moral leadership. I will not recant this conclusion now that someone in our own ranks is rumored to be seeking a divorce. My conclusion is accurate and I stand by it.

   Thus, if a Sean Hannity really is seeking a divorce, then I challenge him to stop doing so. Instead, he needs to do whatever it takes to preserve his family. And … to not be yet another case of the inconsistent moral leadership that is so responsible for this current generations’ moral confusion. I will continue in my own efforts to argue for traditional families, Scriptural living and the sanctity of all innocent human life – but I will not be inconsistent in how I go about doing it. When one of our own is in the wrong, they are still just as much in the wrong as anyone else.


   The purpose of this Culture Watch is to remedy an oversight by us in regards to an Ellen Degeneris. Her lesbian lifestyle is un-Biblical, it sells her own life potential short from what she could be getting out of it and we are, therefore, against it. But, as we did it in “Culture Watch V – We are not hypocrites!”, we do not play favorites. When one of our own acts un-Biblically, we still call it against one of our own. Similarly, when someone who we would normally disagree with does something very meritorious then we call it in their favor. That is the purpose of this Culture Watch VI segment.

   One of the best voices for the Golden Rule and to act kindly to all (whether you agree with them or not) has been Ellen. She has consistently stood her ground on this point and maintains good relationships with all types of people. It is amazing that this should be some type of a revolutionary act – but that is what is going on in our culture. Our political system says that all views are welcome while our popular culture says that you are entitled to gut hate (or even engage in lawless acts) against people who dast to disagree with you. Obviously contradictory; but that is the coarseness of our modern popular culture.

   So, even though her pro-Biblical attitude on this one matter should not be that revolutionary, it still is. We, therefore, now give her her ‘revolutionary’ kudos for her stance. We are sorry we have not done this sooner – she has been taking this stance for sometime.



Incident One: The Day That Many People Became Anti-Immigration. I cannot state the exact date, but I can state the exact type of incident and the approximate date. I was in the Tri-Cities area of Washington State during the early 80s. A sign had just been put up in both Spanish and English – and for the first time. And, at least in my area of the world, this was the first time, and the first date, for the starting of the Great Rift on the immigration debate.

Whether the perception was right, wrong or indifferent it was perceived that – for the first time – a group of people had come into the country for the purposes of NOT assimilating. For this is what the immigration debate is actually – and has always been – about: it is simply about assimilation. No one has ever had objections to any type of a person coming so long as they stick to the script: you can come here as anything BUT, once here, you become only an American and you are no longer anything else! You do not come here to NOT assimilate.

Incident Two: The Rise of the Self-Righteous Nit Pickers. Forgive me if I am aging myself but something from a long time ago: “Aye, aye, aye, aye (strum, strum, strum, strum, strum) … I am the Frito-Bandito (strum, strum)” so went a commercial sung to mariachi music. And, as far as anyone could tell, they were simply amusing commercials that sold products. Which was then pulled off the air for … being racially offensive. Now, I have no position on the merits of the matter one way or the other – and forget that for the moment. Instead, consider the old maxim about knowing where to pick your fights.

Suppose you are nit picking a fight over something that has no roots in racial prejudice, invokes no racial prejudice and is enjoyable to viewers (and of all races) without causing any problems to anyone? And I am certain beyond a certainty that not one single American became more ‘racist’ because of that commercial. So, why was it a smart way to do the picking of a fight? Do we really help ourselves if we are constantly a bunch of stuffed shirts just waiting around for a chance to get offended?

And while I, again, have no real interest in the matter (one way or the other) let’s fast forward to Confederate paraphernalia. To quote a frequently expressed point of view: “Were one to think of the Confederacy they could think of it as a strictly one-dimensional issue about the use of slaves (or they could not look at it that way?) Then, if one wanted to do the construing, they could construe anything connected to the Confederacy to be endorsing slaves. Therefore, I further construe that you have to expunge anything Confederate or you are a racist slave advocate.” (Or maybe it is just a little less of the construing that is in order?)

The problem is two-fold: it blurs the line between never forget and never forgive. There is, in fact, a way in which everyone should remember the Confederacy: The ancestors of the Slave holders need to learn the necessary lessons about what caused it – and the ancestors of the slaves need to learn the necessary forgiveness towards those who caused it. Both things are crucial – and both things are currently AWOL.

But secondly, and most important, is that a self-righteous nitpicker is simply never satisfied. I knew that we would wind up where we are today – and that being the Perfect Acquiescent Society would just lead to further excesses down the road. I would rather live in a country where a small part of the population has some type of an interest in the Old Confederacy – and that is then addressed through intelligent discussions. Than today’s country where everyone is required to hold the same views, no discussions are allowed, and you simply try to expunge things that you do not like. Thus, we come to the next incident.

Incident Three: The Intellectual Equivalent of the Book Burners. (And the end results of being the Perfect Acquiescent Society). I refer, of course, to the present situation of statue slayers, rioters and looters. Like their forerunners, the self-righteous nit pickers, this group has all the same traits of shallowness, being self-righteous and being judgmental.

1) The shallow mentality: everything from the past is garbage therefore destroy everything from the past. (And, being the lofty goal that it is, vigilante styled action is acceptable also.)

2) The self-righteousness: as though we are not all perfectly aware of the past – we are. But there might be some differences on the takeaway, that is, the question of where we go from here. Traditionally, if you do not understand why my takeaway about the past might be different than yours then we used to have something called a discussion. It is where you do something called talk (and, preferably, in a two-way manner) and where you do not do things called loot and burn.

3) The judgmentalism: My apologies but judgment belongs to God. We are only permitted to never forget – not to never forgive. I will neither judge you – nor will I permit myself to be judged by you. It is not going to happen. So, we finally get down to the topic of this article …

Incident Four: The Juneteenth (and Alternative National Holidays) Suggestions. First: A context issue. I have worked in the retail industry and am, therefore, aware of Cinco de Mayo (An Independence holiday relating to events in Mexico). A lot of celebration goes into it and it is clearly a fun occasion BUT no one has ever seriously put it forward as an equal footing to July the 4th (or even, as the BLMers do for ‘Juneteenth’, a replacement for it). So … in the spirit of taking my own advice (and not being a stuffed shirt waiting around to be offended by things) I see no real problems with it.

However, I do have real concerns about things like Kwanzaa and/or Juneteenth. This is getting into the area of different National Holidays for different racial groups – a ‘Don’t Touch’ area by my book. Look at Kwanzaa for a moment:

“Kwanzaa is an annual celebration of African American culture held from December 26 to January 1, culminating in gift-giving and a feast of faith, called Karamu Ya Imani. It was created by Maulana Karenga and first celebrated in 1966. (!) Kwanzaa has become more commercialized while observance of the holiday has waned.”

Perhaps, I am excessively blunt but when you look at the dates involved (and examine the creator – his name was actually a Ronald Everett) isn’t it, arguably, just a lot of faked up whatnot? No wonder you have the part about “has become more commercialized while observance of this holiday has waned.” (What holiday? Can someone just make something up out of the clear blue sky after giving themselves an Africanized surname??)

As to Juneteenth, it has somewhat more legitimacy. It does, for example, have a real history event behind it. The last slaves were freed on a June the 19th in 1865, thus, the ‘Juneteenth’ appellation. Also, there was a natural outpouring that you would expect to be associated with it for at least some time. However, after the passage of time, the predictable also happened again.

Most African Americans shifted to a forgiveness for the past and a looking to the future. Fixations on being enslaved waned considerably and the date fell into disuse. That is why, in my years in retail, I never witnessed any purchasing connected to either Kwanzaa or a ‘Juneteenth’. Thus, the desire for a revival has always tended to be as a political statement by political activists.

But now it is to total excess! Don’t even celebrate the 4th of July at all (because that is Whitey’s day of liberation – not ours?). Or put it on an equal footing as separate holidays? This is where I take my position of not only “No” but “Hell No!” And my reasoning is simple: just look at any other human relationship.

Let us say I tell my wife that I am going back to my pre-marital era and am pulling something out of it to be my main focus. That I am officializing our separate histories and perspectives and may even put them on an equal footing – or as a replacement – to some things we have previously shared together.

But what is wrong with that? After all, I do have a previous separate existence before I met my wife, don’t I? And I am not (necessarily) saying that I am going do this wholesale and, say, starting from right now am I? So, what is wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that, unless you a total dumb bunny, you still know that it is a first step towards getting a divorce – all the intellectualizing and rationalizing notwithstanding. Thus, (and pardon my candor) but to H_ _ _ with Kwanzaa and/or Juneteenth. I know we are in the middle of a strained relationship right now with some African American citizens – but I am still not in favor of suing for a divorce.

And I conclude with the main point from the three prior incidents. Does anyone still really believe that a Perfect Acquiescent Society can pacify people with half measures? That if you will acquiesce just one more time, in one more small measure that everyone will finally love each other?

I don’t believe it. So not only am I opposed to the African American citizen suing for a divorce. I am just as opposed to any half measures (like separate National Holidays) that might be even so much as a one initial step that could lead towards it. There are some people who simply cannot be satisfied; so do not even try to!


   It has been a while since we have done a Culture Watch segment. Perhaps it is the election year and the tumultuous nature of 2020. But, as we have said before, if we lose our culture it makes no difference who we have for President.

   And, as I have repeatedly stressed before, the number one issue in our Culture Wars is not just the morality (or lack thereof) of what is being presented to us by our popular culture. It is the more fundamental question of “Why are they doing this type of presenting (of how our children should be doing their sex acts) in the first place?” And why do such Cultural Elitists feel it is their business to be doing this type of presenting in the first place? It is not.

   As I once put it in my work The Confused Generation, “And yet society is at a role reversal here.

   The universal prescription was to have an intact family dealing with the sex acts business while everyone else stayed out of it. Now, everyone and his kid brother is constantly engaging in the sex acts business with our children EXCEPT for there being an intact family to deal with it. Thus, it is time for both 1) the return of the traditional family unit AND 2) the exit of everyone else from the sex acts business. Or we will continue to have the Confused Generation as we have it today.” End Quote.

  But, unfortunately, and in a way that you would not expect it to happen, my criticism today is not aimed at the Cultural Elitists but at – incredibly – the Hallmark Channel. As we have said before, we are not hypocrites, we play no favorites and we simply call it the way it is. So, what is behind my reprimand of Hallmark (of all people!)

   It is their recent capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby. This is the blunt, unnuanced way to put it. But, as our regular readers know, we understand nuances and we do not broad-brush stroke everyone into the same category. We stand by our previous statements that we, in no wise, condemn people simply for practicing homosexuality.

   We merely believe, that just like a lot of the rest of us, they have an un-Biblical practice that is ongoing in their lives. And that like every one of the rests of us, you need to put these practices behind you when you do get involved in un-Biblical behavior. Thus, we have no worse criticism of people practicing homosexual behavior than of anyone else who has an un-Biblical practice in their lives. But what we do condemn, and vehemently so, are the people who keep trying to orchestrate this lifestyle onto all the rest of us. Or, to use the blunt terminology, the Homosexual Lobby.

  A second matter that concerns us (about this group) is the viciously non-tolerant strain of leftism in the country. And the most Stalinist of these are the people who have become the self-anointed “gay rights” advocates. In a previous Culture Watch segment, we chronicled the ‘tolerant’ crowd’s inability to just let The American Idol be The American Idol. This was our first Culture Watch segment of ours and it pretty much laid down our markers for what we really stand for. (For those with an interest in the matter the link is The Idol Wars.)

   But why has Hallmark done its apparent capitulation? (Specially: they have just done their fourth pro-homosexual movie in less than a month’s time. Why should someone tune into Hallmark to watch two homosexual males lip locking each other? People who watch Hallmark don’t do it to see things like that).

   I think that there are three possible factors for why The Hallmark Channel (at least for the moment) has capitulated to the ‘tolerant’ crowds. (That will knee you in the groins if you do not agree to every one of their ‘tolerant’ views).



   1) We have been aware, for some time, that the ‘tolerant’ crowds would make a move against the Hallmark Network for not playing ball with them. My fears increased when I heard how Lori Loughlin (a central part of Hallmark’s acting crew) wound up with legal problems. Our fear is that they may have taken advantage of Lori Laughlin’s legal problems to use it as a part of the pressure campaign. While I do not condone some of her behavior, it was a far stretch from being unlawful behavior, and I feel it was embellished beyond what she was truly guilty of doing. But why do I bring up the ‘tolerant’ crowds here?

   One reason is that we have been following, in this column specifically, the type of people who use their positions in power to do politically motivated prosecutions. The prosecutors that have been working the college admissions scandals fall in this category. While there was no grand conspiracy involving Lori Loughlin (and Hallmark whom she was a major actress for) once she came to their notice then we believe the following may have happened:

   They love a ‘big fish’ to fall into their nets. Also, because she has been prominent in the Wholesome Entertainment movement (which is now somehow a bad thing rather a good one) it was more of the same. Many federal prosecutors are rife with political motivations and political animus’s against other people in how they do their jobs.

  Next, the ‘tolerant’ crowd may well be using her situation as a warning shot over the bow to others. Essentially, if you do not play ball with them then you had better live a totally sinless life – or you could find yourselves in trouble. This is especially true because most of the prosecutions (not all but most) of the admissions scandal are based on a very nebulous legal theory.

   Namely, that if you are a rich person who gets special favors then that is, in and of itself, an act of grand larceny. With a wide-open legal theory like that in play, it leaves virtually no one safe and is certainly leaves a lot of room to do intimidation. Combine that with many federal prosecutors who also double as political hacks and it is a recipe for disaster. Once who have a wide open enough legal theory to use for prosecutions – and you have prosecutors who are more than happy to double as political hacks – then it is so much for the rule of law. Time does not permit a prolonged dissertation on this, but it is one of our concerns.

   To do a repeat of a prior point: I have always known that a move would be made against Hallmark (and others who have not played ball with the Homosexual Lobby and other PC movements). When I saw Loughlin’s problems being turned into a crusade, I became concerned that it might wind up as something to put the move against Hallmark (and others like them) into play. I do not know for sure how much of this has happened, but it concerns me.



   I do not think that a particular new development is a part of Hallmark’s recent behavior but there is a new development. Hallmark has developed economic ties with the Lifetime Channel which is not so fastidious about just giving people straight entertainment. Hopefully, Hallmark would not comprise its mission of just providing quality entertainment (and staying out of the indoctrination business) just over economic ties. I do not believe this to be the case, but Hallmark needs to be more forthcoming to its viewers as to why there has been a sudden change in their entertainment philosophy.



   Trump may wind up leaving the White House. And, normally, politics would not be so important but …

   The first thing that the homosexual rights movement has done (after Biden has started to look like the incoming President) is to press for what amounts to sheer blasphemy. Basically, they asked the (possibly) incoming people to decertify all parochial and private schools that do not play ball with their agenda. In short, that you can only be private or religious as they define it for you to properly be. This Stalinist type of politics would not be a problem with a Trump administration (or even with a Democrat one before now) but it is a (possible) problem now.

  There is an entire wing of the Justice Department that is (effectively) a criminal organization. It is the SDNY – the Southern District of New York. They deliberately engage in political prosecutions just for politics’ sake. It has now become something of a norm to criminalize political differences.

   And it has become increasingly easy to do this through their increasing use of novel legal theories to make things prosecutable. If you 1) make every possible act a human being can do become prosecutable through novel legal theories and then 2) prosecute only the people that annoy you then 3) you are now successfully the dictator of the world.

   People are already afraid to speak their minds from mob behavior becoming a new norm. Once political prosecutions become the new norm then everyone will have to tow the line of the latest political movement that is in charge. While, technically, you would still not be risking prosecution for simply resisting political correctness the actual reality would become much more intimidating.

   Suppose, for example, you get a real high profile for not conforming to these new norms. Then, just as a hypothetical, someone invents the latest new novel legal theory makes you prosecutable for picking up your newspaper without the proper attire on. And then, finally, you get a prosecutor who also doubles as a political flunky.

   Don’t you now have to add, say, being careful how you pick up your newspaper onto the list of things you now need to be doing? Or should you simply acquiesce to the PC crowd – so you will no longer be on someone’s target list?



    Now I do not know, precisely, why Hallmark has gotten sidetracked onto the wrong course. Its previous course was correct. They portrayed premarital sex in neither a good light nor in a bad one. They just stayed out of the matter altogether, just stuck to being an entertainer and left it up to the parents of the world to raise their children – and to be the ones to mold people’s values.

   Hallmark has not been involved with any hot button issues about your gun rights, abortions, Donald Trump and/or Barrack Obama, etc. And this is also correct. They have, traditionally, just stuck with being an entertainment company and stayed out of the “tell you how to think” business. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

   Similarly, Hallmark had never said anything – one way or the other – about homosexuality. They have never said, portrayed or insinuated that you should not do it. Nor had they ever, until now unfortunately, said, portrayed or insinuated that you should. This was, again, the correct entertainment philosophy.

   In Hallmark’s case it can be said, in a friendly way, to “Go back where you came from!” Because where they came from was right. And the way that they are going now is wrong.



The Coronavirus – The Compilation


   I come from the state with the worst outbreak (in fatalities), Washington State. There will certainly be no humor or satire today. The blurb will still be quick but I will attempt as much analysis value as possible in a short time. To begin:

   The Washington State outbreak highlights the most basic – and least talked about – aspect of fighting a national epidemic. It is that there are 3,142 primary government agencies that will have to lead the fight (and none of them have anything to do with Donald Trump). I refer to the fact that America has 3,142 counties in it – and each county is tasked its own crack team for public health issues. 

   This is the spot where the fight will be won or lost. Referring back to Washington State to illustrate the point: The disease epicenter of our state, at the present time, is one county. Thus, there is one county in America that is currently taking the main brunt of the disease (in fatalities) for the whole country. And all from a very tragic but localized situation.

   Since these blurbs are meant to be short, I will just throw out one shortcoming in our current crisis infrastructure. We have around 687 federal courthouses, spread around the country, that could serve as staging areas against a national epidemic or crisis. Their main purpose would, actually, be small but necessary.

   They would be there as a way to deal with the fact that we would need to have all 3,142 counties working at full capacity – and that the worst starting problem (in any crisis) will always be logistics. Hopefully, the 687 staging areas (spread all throughout the country) will help with the logistics of dealing with the 3,142 county governments – also spread all throughout the country. May the Lord watch over us.


A quick note: MREs stands for Meals Ready to Eat and are designed (primarily) for our military.

   Our situation (with the coronavirus) seems complicated but first a background story. In my last managers job: I wound up butting heads over a basic philosophical difference. The company had a new high level management that was utterly stuck on themselves – and on how much smarter they were than every other person on the planet.

   (Yes, elitist snobbery is alive and well in the corporate world too. Sadly, this is also what they were basing their new direction on to a, presumably, more superior way. Spoiler alert: it didn’t happen like that).

   My position was diametrically the opposite: do things in such a dumbed down, mega-simplified format that it would NOT be possible for it to NOT work. And … once you have something that is not possible for it to not work – then what are the odds that it WILL work? Pretty good, I would think.

   This is also the right approach, for not just the current epidemic, but for every other possible one as well. For what is the one and only airtight way to beat every possible epidemic? Starting with the simple (and the theoretical) for now: keep everyone isolated from each other until the disease runs its’ course. In this way, no current sufferer will ever be able to pass it on to another person. Thus, once it has run its’ course, the epidemic expires with it.

   There are nuances here but, for now, I present the central building block of the air tight epidemic defense: 21 billion MREs at the expense of only 63 billion dollars. This would create enough MREs, to shelter-in-place, the entire U.S. population for the full run of the current disease (and most other diseases also). Now the nuances:

  You would not have to do the entire country all at once. And, in all probability, you might never need to do the whole country at all. There would need to be rolling isolation campaigns.

   They would be preceded by the national guard getting the MREs distributed first, then the isolation/shutdown next. Also, for the next epidemic, we could set up staging areas to help the distribution process. (In another news blurb, posted on 3/05/20, I pointed out that there are 687 federal courthouses spread throughout the country.)

   Now, yes, you would also have to be aware that once you lift the local shutdown – and then reopen the area – there is the threat of people from other areas coming in. And these people may not have had their own areas isolated yet. But competent epidemiologists can walk one through the nuances – while these Current News! items are only meant to be short blurbs.

   The central point is that you can readily defeat any and all possible epidemics if you have a sufficient amount of MREs. And that this is a much cheaper tactic and a much thorougher one also – though there are some economic nuances. Example: a local (but universalized) isolation campaign does not have to damage the economy that much. For, while there will be no income coming in, there will also be fewer outlays as well.

  Are you a worker? You have no income for the 3 weeks but you can also have no outlays as well. If the epidemics’ economics plan just focuses on rent/mortagages and utilities – for a temporary cover period – then you won’t need to make any money during those three weeks. And the MREs will keep you fed for your food.

   Are you a business owner? You also have no income during the 3 weeks but you also have fewer outlays – you don’t have to pay wages. Like the workers, if the epidemics’ economics plan just focuses on rent/mortgages and utilities – for a temporary cover period – then you won’t need to make any money during those three weeks.

   Again, we can talk nuances. But the general economic concept is that you have the local economy simply become dormant for the short interlude.  Thus, I feel it can all be simplified by just going back to the title of this blurb. If you will just give me enough MREs then I can save the world! 


   So … for the moment (at least) we are minus our MRE stockpile. And, unfortunately, the Prez is being pressured to do a lot of the wrong things and … is not getting the type of advice he needs to do the right ones. Look back, for example, at my 3/05/20 post on the coronavirus.

  It mentioned the 3,142 most important government agencies that would have to be at the center of the fight. It was my first serious blurb on the virus and is, still, the most relevant. For now we know that 50% of all the virus transmission has come out of just 10 counties in America.

   If the CDC had made the Countrys’ County Health Departments their main focus we might well have stopped the problems. Now, granted, we can’t turn back the clock. So, I will introduce Going-Forward-Solution #1: a strategic quarantine of these 10 counties.

   Going-Forward-Solution #1): The first of the new ways forward (to reopen the country): you can not cross any county line (in either direction) EXCEPT under the following circumstances:

    a) You are hauling commercial cargo AND you do not roll down your window or get out of your vehicle – except at truck stops along the way if you are a long haul trucker.

    b) Now that we have a more enhanced testing ability: you may go back to using public transportation systems to go past county lines. IF you are tested first before getting on a plane, train or sailing vessel. AND you are tested after exiting a plane, train or sailing vessel on your return to your point of origin.

   These two sets of restrictions will do little economic damages and should have been instituted at the County levels from the earliest times of the outbreak. It may well be a good idea to make this a national set of restrictions. At a minimum, they must be a part of a strategic quarantine for the Top Ten – the counties that have done 1/2 of all the transmissions of the disease for the whole country.

   Going-Forward-Solution #2) STOP even trying to protect the entire country: it is not possible because we did not (and still do not) have the necessary preparations in place. We are doing the #1 No-No of all times: THE DIFFUSION OF LIMITED RESOURCES or to use a medical term: we are in a triage situation while still trying to help everyone. MEDICAL RULE NUMBER ONE: YOU DO NOT DO THAT!

  There are two categories of people to deal with: those with a high probability of death from the virus vs. those who have only a high probability of getting sick (but not dying). We must overhaul the entire strategy: double down hard on only those most vulnerable to death. In short, we must shift our approach so that we will allow a lot more people to get sick while insuring that a lot less people will actually die.

   And, in a sort of grim way, getting sick is good if you are not susceptible to actually dying. The more the population becomes this way the faster the virus will burn itself out. But, what about category two: those less vulnerable to dying? Aren’t there some possible protections available?

   a) We look at the facts as laid out above: we rely on their own natural protection to save them from actually dying.

   b) Re-opening does not necessarily have to re-open a mass infection anyway. By strategic quarantines of certain areas, most of the country may not suffer at all. Plus, people are much smarter now about how not to get sick. Those of us in Category #2 can add to our natural protection, even after going back to a relative ‘normal’, just by relying on forewarned is forearmed.

   c) The ‘smarter’ classes need to allow us to both walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. It is possible to do both controlled studies on hopeful therapies and cures – while still allowing their mass use so long as they don’t violate the Do No Harm rule. None of the following items has any significant chance of doing harm while still, maybe, doing good:

       i) Hydroxyl Choroquine (and other similar antiviral/anti-inflammatory medicines) that are still proven safe while MAYBE also being effective for an off label use.

      ii) Plasma therapies using existing antibodies from people who have recovered and, possibly controversial,

     iii) Immunotherapy. People may well flinch at getting oneself deliberately infected but that is what a large number of successful vaccines ultimately do: a weakened strain is used to ‘infect’ you. But because of it’s weakened nature you get the best of both possible worlds. You get to have your antibodies get produced without having to actually get sick. Also, with our modern scientific abilities to open up microscopic entities and manipulate them it might not be that difficult to produce this situation: using a less harmless strain of a virus to get antibodies produced against a more harmful one.

   The main point though: there are some things that are a medical judgment. However, there are other things that are, ultimately, a value judgment – and even if it might have medical ramifications. The philosophy of “What the hell do you have to lose?” is a value judgment. And there is nothing about a doctor that gives him a superiority at value judgments.

   They have superior medical judgments but they do not have superior value judgments. Whipping an epidemic involves both types of judgments. So don’t assume that every doctor is smarter than you are, and at every single thing so that you must do only what they tell you to do – rather than to think for yourself also.

   Going-Forward-Solution #3) We can still start the mobilizations needed for the recommendations of the next blurb below, “With Enough MREs” that was posted on 3/19/2020. Eventually, we would start with the #1 worst of the worst 10 counties for a campaign of rolling isolations. After the first of the 10 is set up well enough (and you have enough mobilization in place) you might then start on numbers 2 thru 10 – without, necessarily,  having to wait for the full three weeks for #1 to finish its’ full course.

   Sorry if  this ‘quickie’ blurb has, actually, been rather lengthy. So … if you have not read the 3/19/20 blurb below read it now so you will understand what an MRE-based isolation campaign refers to. Also, I will try to do more regular (and shorter?) blurbs on this subject as events develop. Stay safe and good bye for now!


   What makes this all a fiasco is that various governors and mayors keep calling for more and more “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders – when there are no such things available. If a prepared national shut down had been set up you would have the following:

   1) A situation where the only people not in shutdown would be:   

      a) the national guardsman who would mobilize the lockdown

      b) law enforcement personnel and

     c) a skeleton crew of utilities workers to make sure that the utilities would stay up and running – for the locked down population.

   2) From the above: only about 5% of the people in the area would remain in a somewhat exposed state (the people mentioned above) while

   3) The other 95% of the people in the area would remain under full lockdown and have no meaningful exposure until the virus could be starved out and die accordingly

  But … because they keep insisting on ordering more people to, somehow, lock themselves down – and to be left to their own devices on how to somehow accomplish such a feat – you have the following:

   1) There have to be “essential businesses” so they can fend for themselves at getting their own provisions. Thus, about 30 to 40 percent of the population still has to show up for the daily shifts, interact with strangers and etc. and still be subjected to a full exposure to the virus. And this includes some of the high risk pool of people who might work at one of these ‘essential’ businesses. Has anyone thought to check if these businesses might employ 65 and older people – exactly the ones you don’t want exposed?

   2) The other 60 to 70 percent of the population still has to keep bobbing in and out of social contacts (at the essential businesses to maintain their provisions). And, thus, they will still retain at least some exposure to the virus rather than having none and

   3) It is out of this half baked arrangement that we are supposed to shut down an entire society well enough to kill off a virus with the level of contagiousness that this one has.

   Thus, I will stick with the points made from my previous virus updates. The entire focus should have been a triage operation where the limited resources were used to shelter the vulnerable more thoroughly – and let there be a short surge in people getting sick – but with a lesser amount of people actually dying.

   And once, as has been noted before, you got more effective measures mobilized, you could do the isolation campaign effectively – under the conditions that would prevail at the beginning of this blurb. Thus, you might even wind up, over the long term, with even less illnesses as well as deaths.

   But, at the present, all we are getting is more and more declarations of half-baked measures at a more and more astronomical cost. The President has been taken advantage of:

      1) he received lousy advice

      2) he received enormous emotional pressures to attempt to save everyone all at once (in a way that would have to prove utterly chaotic) and

      3) he is now on the hook for an endless number of multi-trillion dollar bailouts – to relieve the problems that other people are free to keep causing (with more and more of these half-baked measures.)

   I got it wrong in my previous statement; the President has not been taken advantage of. He has been totally suckered.


   I have listed a number of problems about the current Corona Virus strategy. But I have not actually gotten to that most central problem. It is not the Prez – but the fact that no one else is showing any leadership. And, thereby, making it so that everything revolves around one human being in a country with 330 million people at risk.

   And the two items of this that I will focus on are the two items at the bottom of the totem pole – not the ones at the top. I am referring to the medical professionals out in the country (not the ones in DC that get the TV coverage) – and to us common folk as the second item of consideration.

   So … what am I the most annoyed about with the medical profession out in the country? It is that the national microphone has been hijacked by the panic mongers. Thus, the medical professionals need to get off of their butts, retake the microphone and get an appropriate ‘bedside’ manner prevailing again in the country.

  It is not possible, and will never be possible, when there is a sudden mass medical emergency situation, to have an airtight set of supply lines. And to also have flawless logistics to all situations and in all places for all of a countrys’ 330 million people. I am sick of listening to all of this c_ _ _ that unless 1) a Donald John Trump gets every supply line working continuously airtight and 2) gets every logistics operation to go like clockwork then we will all freaking die. These are the type of words that can kill and I will use an example to demonstrate this.

   A first aid instructor once told me the following example: You see an unconscious injury victim and say “Well, hell, it looks bad and like he ain’t going to make her.” His criticism? It was that hearing is the last thing to go out before someone dies. Thus, your saying “it looks bad and like he ain’t going to make her” may be just the thing that causes the accident victim to not make her.

   Now, with this in mind, how does the following talk sound (as far as being good bedside manners): “AAAAAAAA!!! Unless a Donald John Trump makes everything come together perfectly we’re all going to freaking die!!! AAAAAAAA!!!”  I realize that the medical profession has enough on its’ plate already. Still, one of the first things you always have to do is start out with a “Stay Calm!” – and to get the microphone away from idiots like the ones that are currently wielding it. Before, that is, they get even more people killed than are getting killed already.

   But how can the medical profession be more involved in doing this? The medical profession can do a lot (that they are currently not doing). They can remind people that the first thing that is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS done, in a sudden mass medical emergency, is to setup a triage station.

   This involves field medicine, improvising, thinking out of the box – and doing so without any ironclad guarantee that you will always have the best of equipment, and all fully stocked and at all times. Doctors are right to keep pressing for all of the equipment and supplies that they can get. But they do still know how to soldier on and keeping doing the medical care that the people need.

   Also, we have some plausible Hail Mary types of medications (until something better comes along). It is possible to improvise with PPE equipment while you are stretched out betwixt and between. Further, there is such a thing as hand ventilating if one is minus a mechanical ventilator (I even looked that up. It is, in fact, true).

   Thus, what the medical professionals need to do – forcefully and on a regular basis – is to state that, while they will keep pressing for more and better equipment, that they can and will still be able to provide you with your medical care come what may. And though doctors work on physical bodies as their main lane, they are all also aware of the intangible elements also. Specifically, that hope keeps people alive while fear kills.

   The other main grievance I have with the medical profession at large is their cursory way of getting people to do self protection. Sure, social distancing, wash your hands and don’t touch your face are all good but there is much more that can be done for self protection. And where, possibly, a person can decisively save themselves rather waiting for someone else to save them.

   And here is where I will transition the discussion to us the common people. There are leadership issues involved here also. So … how good has your leadership been over your own life? At the end of the day we are all in a position of leadership even if it just involves your own leadership over your own life. So how would you rate yourself?

   To use the last paragraph about the medical profession: what about yourself as your own protector? I realize there is plenty of blame to go around but, at the end of the day, don’t we all ultimately wind up as the final line in our own defense system?

   So, here are the basics of an (almost) airtight self protection system against viruses. It revolves around a well known but rarely discussed fact. Specifically, there that there is one way in which you will always be stronger than any virus. And it revolves around bleach.

   Just a combination of 4 tsps of bleach per 4 cups of water is enough to kill any virus while not harming you. There is your one edge that you can use to protect yourself the best. So… what is the full kit then for a self protection regimen? It is:

    1) Hand sanitizer

      2) A basin of bleach blend – a 1 tsp per one cup of water mixture

     3) a self made face mask and

     4) cotton balls

  Before leaving your house you do the following:

   1) use the hand sanitizer to clean off your hands 

   2) you take the immersed mask and ring it out to get rid of the bleach. The bleach simply sanitizes the mask. You can use the dip to rinse your face (eyes closed). And be sure to dry off well afterwards. This will kill all of the viruses on your facial area.

   3) You keep one end of the two cotton balls dry and then dip the other ends into the bleach blend. You put the cotton balls into your nasal cavity – bleached side out to block the pathogens. Also, so that you don’t bleach fume yourself.

   4) Place the face mask over your face and you should be good to go.

   If, during your outside activities, you can stop virus contact with your mouth and nose you will almost certainly keep yourself safe. Provided, you follow your Returning Home procedures.

   After you return home, use the hand sanitizer to clean your hands. Re-immerse your protective gear back into the bleach blend,  rinse and dry your face. You have now cleaned yourself off and set up your protective gear for its’ next usage.

   But here, in my opinion, are the most important leadership issues vis-a-vis yourself. Who do you ultimately pray to to give you this day your daily bread? To God or to the government? Do you pray to the Lord to be your ultimate deliverer from evil or to Barrack Obama or Donald Trump?

   Yes, we do what ever we sanely can to limit risks. But for those of us in the low risk pool, we have the obligation to self protect so that the limited resources go mostly to those in the high risk end. Also, we still have an obligation to keep the country going so that these resources are not depleted. Finally, at some point, aren’t all of our lives still ultimately in God’s hands? Where do you stand on these types of leadership issues in regards to your own life?


   A Senator Amy Klobuchar and family have, fortunately, made a full recovery from the coronavirus. It is everyone’s duty to be thankful for this. However, it is also everyone’s duty to ignore the image making that was involved (in the televised news segment) that puts out the Amiable Amy/Nice Everyday Girl From Next Door persona.

   If you have not read it, read “Komrade Klobuchar” from the Rogues Gallery section in the “Welcome to the Library” page. There is nothing Amiable about this particular Senator (nor the other Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee). For those who have not read it, the issue involved is “Is it morally acceptable to do a frame-up (for rape) against someone – if it will stop them from opposing Roe vs. Wade?” We take the position that it is not.



   My immediate observation is one that I have predicted all along. It is about the failure to triage, i.e., use all of our resources to do a hard lock down on the vulnerable – while the rest of us come up with better ways to protect ourselves. What is occurring is the continuing rise in the death rate per number of confirmed cases. It was, once, at only 1%.

   It rose to 2% as of a couple of weeks ago, jumped to 3% as of a few days ago and is picking up speed as it goes rapidly towards 4%. All of this jump comes from the coronavirus penetrating deeper and deeper into the older and more vulnerable categories of the general population.

   So what was the reason the death rate started at only 1%? It is due to natural circumstances: the vulnerable are not, normally, as active as the younger population. Thus, the initial rounds of the infection start out much more likely to hit the younger – and not the more vulnerable – first.

   Thus, if extra layers of protection had been set up hard enough, and early enough, we might well have had the overall death rate go down from the 1% to maybe no higher than a 1/2%. But it is instead climbing and will continue to do so until it may well hit the Italy levels of around 10%. Again, my ‘blame game’ (such as it is) has been spelled out before:

   1) The medical advice Trump has received. I have no idea how he can have the expertise level available to him that he has – and they have, apparently, no concept of what a triage is and when it is needed as your initial approach.

   2) The astronomical emotional pressures that were exerted against him. This being done to sucker him into trying to save everyone all at once, and from all things all at once. Rather than concentrating on the most vulnerable first (and about death first) rather than getting that Diffusion of Limited Resources that I have alluded to in other writings.

   3) The third blame area is a benign one. And it is that everyone is a flawed human being and, at the same time, just a human being. Now, according to the New American Left and their flunky media allies, Donald Trump is the only person on the entire planet who is an exception to this. He is ahuman and totally in a caricature mode as walking evil. He, by there statements, does not give an s, an h, an i or a t about any other human being except for himself.

   The problem with this analysis? How does such a person get emotionally blackmailed into a quixotic effort to save everyone all at once? And to let himself get put on the hook to be running around like a chicken with his head cut off with the responsibility to save everybody? In short, the third ‘blame’ area (if you want to call it that) is that he is not remotely like what his critics say he is as a person.


      1) I repeat the one prediction I have already made: the death rate will continue to keep climbing until it gets closer and closer to the Italy rates of 10% (unless there is a radical change in policy to shift priorities).

      2) The death rates among strictly young and healthy people will be less than 1/2% once all of the Monday morning quarterbacking is done.

      3) With aggressive self protection, the low risk pool of people could have kept the economy open and still kept the infection rate down to around 1% of their part of the population. (If everyone had started earlier with the appropriate use of masks, maintaining as much distance as their work situations allowed, using whatever forewarned is forearmed knowledge they might have as smartly as possible, etc.) This will be found to be true after all of the Monday morning quarterbacking is done.

   4) Thus, if the triage approach had been executed properly – and from the beginning – the number of deaths could have been held to around 10,000 out of the low risk pool. And, since there is no such thing as a totally perfect defense strategy, we might also have still lost, maybe, another 10,000 people from the high risk pool. But this is only 20,000 people while not shutting down the economy. This position will be seen as being justified once there is the post game time for analysis.

   5) This set of predictions also makes the assumption that no one will pursue the “With enough MREs” strategy laid out in some of my earlier writings. Even minus this, however, a properly done triage approach would have still resulted in less death and destruction to the economy than what the President allowed himself to get manipulated into.


   Going forward, I will have a new Gallery set up on the Welcome To The Library Page. It will be called the Potpourri Gallery – and will be exactly that. It will deal with a wide variety of different issues and the first one will be “The Coronavirus – The Compilation.” This will simply take all of my Current News! blurbs on the virus and compile them into one set of posts – with my earliest writings starting first.

   Secondly, while I am a full Trump supporter, I have a duty to keep an accurate record of this virus as it plays itself out. Done, in the hope that the right lessons can be learned later on. Therefore, I will post a new article as the virus reaches its’ coming percent of deaths marks: i.e. when it reaches 4%, I will post a short article reminding the reader of why the current strategy is wrong. I will similarly do this as it reaches the upcoming marks of 5%, 6%, 7% and etc. Done, again, just to maintain an accurate record for the future.

   Pardon my bit of downbeat drama here but I will also post the occasional article for helpful suggestions too. With, of course, a desire to hear from you. Make some comments, post some articles, get involved!


   I have, finally, come up with the most definitive materials that I can find. The actual death rate, in real time, is even worse than the 3-4% mark. This number came from having the total number of cases, going back to Day 1, and then comparing it against the total number of deaths – and going back to Day 1.

   As stated earlier, this number has been increasing – and in the way my last article stated. But the best measure is a real-time measure of what is happening right now. The link below will give you the two numbers you need: the daily (real-time) increase in cases and the daily (real-time) increase in deaths. Thus, you can now get the daily, real-time death rates from this below link:

Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   I also have an updated link for what the real-time death rates are according to a person’s age. It is below:

   The upshot is that the most pessimistic estimate of death rates (among lower risked people below age 65) is 3/4% – when you weigh in all the age groups and make the appropriate adjustments. Since the real-time death rate is running at 6% then we have at least an 8 fold increase in the death rates that may be totally unnecessary.

   On the plus side, the cases (nationally) most likely are levelling off like we are being told. But at what type of an excessive price? In more deaths and economic devastation equally alike.


   (Obviously) there comes a point where a matter is talked to death so … as to the virus: after today, we will just do a weekly update on the progress of the fight against the virus. We have already expressed our views on how we think it could have been done better. So … to our last opinion blurb on the coronavirus efforts:


   The reopening should be in two phases: the first phase should be to make things the way it should have been all along (by our opinion) without doing any of the closings at all. Namely, that all businesses should be opened. But with limitations:

   All employees are to practice aggressive self protection – masks dampened in a slight protective solution, on-the-hour clean up breaks with hand sanitizers and a slight protective solution blend to re-dip the masks and/or rinse the facial areas. The employers are to configure their shops so that there is either a 6 foot social distance separation between employees and customers OR there is to be a partition of some kind as an alternative.

   (This is another reason why I don’t like medical professionals actually running the show. If you haven’t noticed, virtually all cashiers have now put up physical barriers between themselves and the customer. It has always been obvious that the 6 foot rule could not apply but … guess what? They figured out the physical barrier scheme as an alternative – and did it all by themselves!)

   A final self-protection is to simply be aware of who is working for you. (From our other writings: someone who is in the high risk pool should not be working for you – or shopping from you. They should be in the harder levels of protection we have talked about elsewhere.) But what the employer can do (minus we called a ‘triage’ concept being used by the government) is to observe which employees are having to do the most hazardously close-in work with others. If they are wearing a face mask, are under 40 years of age and have no underlying health problems the odds of them still winding up dead are virtually nil.

   As to the customers: I again criticize the arrogance of the medical professionals. Most employers (who have been allowed to stay open) are already doing everything right:

     1) Most of them limit the amount of people that are inside at any time (so that social distancing can be maintained) and

     2) Most of them have all lines (on the outside) have space bars to keep the people in line from getting too close to each other. Also, they usually have the line to the cashier be similarly marked and for the same reasons. And this was all done without anyone ordering them to do it. But there should be one last change that has not been totally put into gear yet.

     3) All  customers should have to wear a face mask before being allowed in. Even this is something that the medical professionals bear the most blame for. Since Day One, they have insisted that masks are critical to their survival while, simultaneously, discouraging the average citizen from using one. This is one of the prime reasons that masks haven’t been getting used more frequently. 

   4) But then you have the air tight reason why there is probably not even one restaurant – anywhere in America –  that should have ever been closed. It is because virtually every business in America already has the capability to act as a drive-in establishment as well as drive-through ones. In today’s world, virtually every person who will park in a parking lot will also have access to a cell phone and the phone number of any establishment that they might want to do business with. And, conversely, in today’s world virtually every business you might want to park in front of has the ability to take phone orders and payments. Finally, since the food can be delivered to the hood of a car (with the all of the windows rolled up) wouldn’t this act as an airtight social separation technique? Between this, drive-throughs, home delivery and inside social separation OR partitioning (either can work) there has never been the need to shut down a single business. At least not without allowing them to submit a Safe-but-Open plan.

    So why has a single restaurant ever been ordered closed – without them at least being given a chance to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan? This must never happen again. There must be a new federal law giving every business owner the right to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan before they can ever be closed. And the new federal law must place the County Health Departments as the approving authorities for them – to prevent the types of political fowl ups that we keep seeing involved here.

   This would be Phase One of the re-opening. (Which, again, is what we have advocated all along but without doing the shutdown in the first place.) But before we go to Phase 2, just a couple of questions:

      1) ‘Essential’ businesses appear to be operating safely with the extra safeguards that most of them have adopted. So why would opening a ‘nonessential’ business – to operate the same way – risk reigniting the virus?

     2) Finally, where are the random testings – to know exactly how the breakdown of the virus is actually occurring. Gallup polls do this type of an exercise all of the time. They use just a small amount of sampling to get an accurate breakdown of opinions – and across a massively large area. All the random testing program would be is the same selection process – you just then do a virus test rather than an interview. Maybe we should put them in charge of the testing program rather than the medical ‘professionals’? We could have known weeks ago exactly how the virus is distributed amongst the population – and how the impact actually works out to with precision.


   Our views on Phase Two are simple: necessity will always be the best mother of invention. Allow each business enterprise to be able to reopen itself fully if they can meet just one condition:

   They set up a regimen where they can vouch for everyone, who comes inside their business, that they are negative for the virus. This may not sound like much but it is enough just to put an economic incentive out there – for the business world itself to get involved in testing. And their are many ways they could do it. I will only list one for-instance scenario.

   My one possible example: why couldn’t businesses pool some of their money for their own testing centers, i.e., a sign says “Do you want to go shopping? Get tested here.” or “Do you want to eat inside the lobby? Get tested here.” They then have their own arrangement so that if a person tests negative they get a certificate saying “Good to go” – followed by the date of the test on the slip of paper. This person is then free to shop anywhere and at any time with no restrictions  – for at least the next 24 hours (or maybe more – depending on the science involved). Now that there are quick tests available why not quick testing centers that can enable you to be good to go? And especially if you give the business world itself a powerful economic incentive to start setting such centers up?

   This, again, is just one for-instance. The details don’t really matter – nor do we have to keep being dictated to by politicians or by the medical bureaucrats. Once you put an economic incentive out there for the business world to get into the testing business then it will just somehow happen. There are the laws of physics, there is the law of gravity and there are the laws of human nature that necessity will always become the mother of invention. It needed even be worried about.

   Just these two items (a business’ right to submit a Safe-but-Open Plan and an incentive to become a part of the testing industry) should totally do the trick until the national emergency is over. Less lives would have been lost (not more), it would end the emergency quicker and, in all probability, it should have been done without ever shutting down a single business for even one single second.



   Per a previous blurb, I will maintain a record when the virus hits certain benchmarks. As of today, the rate of cases is stabilizing but not the death rates. The real time death rate has made another 1-percentile uptick: from running at 6% to 7%.


Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   The link above had a significant update yesterday. Check the new format for survival rates. (Under 40, no underlying health problems results makes for only a 1 in 2500 chance of a fatality from the virus). You can see again how there has been no epidemic but simply a failure to protect the vulnerable parts of the population. But for this, there would be no significant amount of deaths.

   On a plus note, policy makers are at least making mention of the over 65/under 65 factor in their latest considerations. We will have to await the results to see if it is with a sufficient seriousness. That is, do we finally start getting these people out of the equation so that the overall death rates will start becoming lower and lower. At this moment, the benchmark rate (of the real time death rate for the populous as a whole) is running at 7.4%.


   We are on top of the ‘flattened curve’. The active number of cases (when using a 5-day rolling average) goes a slight up, slight down, slight up, slight down … at slightly over 500,000 active cases. The daily death totals do the same slight up, slight down, etc. (when using a 5-day rolling average) of about 2150 daily deaths and a 7.5% death rate in real time numbers.

   The problem with (finally) being ‘flattened’? ‘Science’ keeps flashing these two different curves at us. One is a steep, sharp but short curve that depicts the natural course of an epidemic. The second is the much bally-hooed ‘flattened’ curve. But, if you actually look at the two different curves geometrically, it is possible that they are still roughly equivalent in total deaths.

   The natural steep curve (of an epidemic) is horrible but much shorter in length – while the ‘flattened’ curve (potentially) goes on and on and on … Thus far, we have been in this ‘flattened’ state for more than 2 weeks with no guarantee of it ending soon. Thus, we may wind up having just as many total deaths as the natural curve would have produced without all of the ‘flattening’ measures.


   The number of active cases seems to be stabilizing at a slightly lower level (480,000 vs. 500,000). We only hope it will stop doing the up and down jerkiness of being in a ‘flattened’ curve – but stuck at the top part of it.

   The number of deaths seems to be stabilizing below the 2000 a day mark, with the real time death rate having some individually better days – and is currently stabilizing at around 6 1/2% rather than a 7 1/2% rolling average.

   A special announcement for those of you who do want to stay fixed in to virus news. You can go to and put my name, Mark Christie, into the search engine. I have been fielding questions from people on the matter at this forum and have over 100 question and answers on file there.

   Also, from previous announcements, there is my compilation of virus news blurbs in the Potpourri Gallery at the Welcome to the Library! page.

VIRUS UPDATES (Posted 5/18/20)

I will continue reducing how much coverage we give to “All about the virus, all the time” – in lieu of other issues still being important. Thus, I will continue to keep the updates short – but I still need to keep the process transparent when issues do occur. So, today, I will give slightly more than just an update.

The virus, as best I can tell, is still down about 40% from its peak – but it could be more(?). There are reports of people inflating the counts which I can not offer any first hand confirmation of.  I can give some first hand info, however, on the reporting of cases becoming more erratic and atypical of how the reporting was going before.

I do a 5-day rolling average because the day-to-day numbers can swing wildly. However, the numbers are starting to have such a massive swing and seesaw (compared to how it used to be before recent dates) that I am (somewhat) concerned. I don’t have the time to go into massive investigations of possible misbehavior (if there is any). Thus, I will keep you updated both on the numbers and any thing (noticeable) about how the reporting of cases is being done.

Thus, the epidemic seems to be down about 40%. But the main benchmark that I am the most concerned about (the real-time death rates) is still stuck at the totally unacceptable level of between 6 and 7 percent. Again, in a virus that is only significantly dangerous to the elderly and the infirm. Who, apparently, still continue to remain ineffectively protected against the spread of infectious diseases.


Possible good news on the virus: maybe we are finally getting listened to. A nationally televised talk show host has finally started catching up – to where we have been at all along. One of the President’s Reopening point men went on air and was starting to talk – in the way that we have been talking all along. So … maybe if we just keep doing like we are doing: reading and talking about our virus materials and getting others to read them and talk about them then – we might continue to see the debate changing our way. With this in mind, I will now release the shortest possible version of our position on why the shutdowns are irrelevant to helping people.

Split the country into three groups:

1) the 65 and overs who have underlying conditions and are in residential care

2) the 65 and overs who have underlying conditions and are not in residential care and

3) all of the rest of us.

We can make this division because of what we now know about the virus. And, because of what we now know about the virus, we know the behavior of group 3) (all of the rest of us) is irrelevant to whether people in the other two groups get sick.

The first reason: as soon the epidemic became known group 1) – the 65+ in elder care facilities – was put into an immediate official lock down. Since the earliest stages of the virus, no visitors have been allowed into these facilities and the residents have not been allowed to go out. Thus, whatever is going on with the general population (outside these facilities) has nothing to do with them getting sick – and hasn’t had anything to do with it since the earliest stages of the epidemic.

The second reason: as soon the epidemic became known group 2) – the 65+ w/ underlying conditions and who are not in elder care facilities – has been in something of an unofficial lock down. Nobody in group 3) – the rest of us – has been getting sick and then thoughtlessly dropping in on these people to get them sick too. The only reason people in this category – group 2 – are still getting sick is to the extent that they are not staying locked down. They have to come and go to get their supplies (or they may choose to come and go for other reasons). As to others dropping in on them (if you are still worried about this) – then just make that a part of the public campaign effort. Remind people (frequently) not to do this and it should be no problem. (And without shutting down the general population).

The third reason: the group 3) – the rest of us – are in no substantial danger from the virus in the first place and, thus, we are also irrelevant to the question of halting the epidemic. There are your three main groups and why each of the three are not helped by simply trying to shut down the general population.

The solutions to the three groups also show why shutting down the general population is irrelevant.

Group 1’s solution: is for the state and local agencies to simply stop being so ineffective at protecting the elderly (in elder care) from infectious diseases – none of which relates to any need to shut down the general population.

Group 2’s solution: is for them to be better enabled and better encouraged not to have to come out. Like, say, the National Guard being used – none of which relates to any need to shut down the general population.

Group 3’s solution: is that we have never been in danger in the first place – none of which relates to any need to shut down the general population. Therefore, there is both no utility from, and no need to, shut down the general population.

THE KEEP IT UP! UPDATE (Posted 5/25/20)

Great Numbers!

1) The erratic bouncing around in the numbers (talked about earlier) appears to have stopped. The numbers are back to a more normal day-to-day difference.

2) The 5-day rolling average of deaths is down around 60% from the peak levels. Today’s death rate is only 495 people – down 80% from the peak numbers. But the best news yet:

3) The case load is only down by a 1/3 – most of the decrease in deaths is from the death rates finally dropping back down. After going past 7% (and persistently staying there) the death rate dropped to 6% on 5/19, went down to 5% as of yesterday and, on individual good days (like today), the death rate was only 2 1/2%.

So … are the powers that be finally getting there blank together at what we have said all along? That it is primarily an elderly and infirm person’s disease? The only way the death rate can start going back down again is by getting better at protecting the elderly and the infirm. As of now, it is indeed going back down again so … hopefully it is not just a temporary fluke. Hopefully, it is a case of us, and other people like us, having our arguments finally starting to get traction in policy.

Also, our arguments – and other people like us – are becoming more and more a part of the national discussion. More prominent talk show hosts (including a Sanders supporter) are finally starting to catch on to the basic facts about the virus – and how we have all been suckered by a stampede to close everything down.

So … let us keep it up. Keep talking about our stances on the virus, keep getting others involved in the discussions with us, keep getting more traction at changing things.

And we will close like we did with the last update: in the last update we put out our shortest possible arguments on why trying to shut down the general population was just as ludicrous an idea as it first sounds like – ‘science’ and ‘data-driven’ notwithstanding. This update will give our shortest possible arguments for why mobilizing the National Guard (rather than trying to demobilize an entire civilian population) is clearly a more obvious way to control a virus.

A short and quick example: You first mobilize the Guard and declare just a 5-days/24-hour curfew the next time we are fighting an epidemic. This is done to a hot spot for 100% of its residents for 100% of that full time – and what would happen?

First, your testing regime would work perfectly – even minus testing kits. This is a tried and true millennia old method of testing and isolating. You would have at least some amount of the people (who were infected) start to show signs during this five-day interlude. The Guard would provide them with provisions to stay quarantined for the next 3 weeks and everyone else could go back to normal.

First Possible Effect: Say that this next one turns out to be a non-sneaky virus (like the most lethal ones almost invariably are). Then the 5 day “flushing out the virus” period – followed  by the flushed out cases being quarantined by the National Guard – would – at least mostly – beat the virus. If it is another sneaky type of virus – still no problem.

Second Possible Effect: the flushed-out cases would still be enough to do the following things:

   1) Be able to provide an accurate statistical analysis about its lethality issues per all ages and groups

   2) Shielding the elderly and infirm is always Project Number 1 in any type of a virus anyways. Since we would already have the Guard mobilized, this would become easier to do.

   3) It would still reduce a significant amount of cases – even if not all of them. The sneakier the virus, the smaller percent of the total cases it would prevent – but it would still do a considerable reduction. Conversely, since most people will be fine on a 5-day shut in, it would do little damage and be easily achievable. Possibly, depending on how the number crunching works out, there might be other 5-day step downs as a part of a gradual strategy.

(Special note: This is a short form argument. Thus, there will be no prolonged argumentation on why a virus (that is both very sneaky and very lethal) is very unlikely to exist. I will still state a possibility Number 3 anyway.)

Third Possible Effect: Finally, if – and may the Lord forbid it – such an exercise reveals that there is such a thing as a virus that has both high sneakiness and high lethality. Then this type of a non-shutdown shutdown won’t work anyway. It still involves leaving 60% of the population just as exposed as before. It still leaves the other 40% without the resources to stay ducked and covered (completely). And it still leaves the most vulnerable communities still being the least protected.

In short, you cannot handle any type of shelter orders (effectively) without deploying the National Guard anyway. And all this current article is intended for is a limited purpose. I am showing that even a 5-day order – if it is coordinated through the National Guard – will still do more than the current ill proposed effort. It is not to endorse such an effort per se.

Concluding, to repeat the same takeaway that I have said before: this is what happens when you let other people do your thinking for you and – especially – if they regard themselves as ‘scientific’. There is nothing about ‘science’ or ‘data driven’ that gives a person basic common sense. The only reason no one has thought to at least try deploying the National Guard first – before trying to un-deploy an entire society – is because we are now micro-managed (and dictated to) by people who simply don’t have any common sense.

THE KEEP IT UP! UPDATE (Posted 6/03/20)

I recently got the needed messages out (about the inept handling of the epidemic) to a fairly friendly conservative policy forum. But I need you to push back hard on this issue also – protect the elderly and then get out of the rest of our faces!

As to the virus progress: the virus has stabilized since the last update but has yet to do its steep drop off that we are praying for. The latest numbers are a rolling average of under 1,000 deaths per day (still a 60% drop from the peak) – and less of an erratic up/down bounce in the numbers. The rolling average of the cases is close to 20,000 per day (or down 1/3 from the peak).

Best news is that the real time death rate is down to slightly over 4% – and the numbers are getting more stable; less really bad days and an occasional much better day. As to the rest of the current news, I am requesting you reroute yourself to the Floyd Matter if you have not already. I want this to stay at front and center for a while longer.

THE KEEP IT UP! UPDATE (Posted 6/16/20)

   We can only hope that the ‘scientific’ crowd is continuing to smarten up. As of 6/06/2020 the real time death rate fell to 4%. Though still unacceptable it is a continued improvement showing that either:

   1) They are finally getting a little smarter and are finally concentrating on just doing a better job of watching out for the elderly and the infirm or

   2) That at least Mother Nature is able to get smarter. And the elderly and the infirm have finally gotten the drill down a little better and are doing a better job of protecting themselves

   THE KEEP IT UP! UPDATE (Posted 6/19/20)

   In spite of the ‘scientific’ crowd, the real time death rate continues to fall. As of 6/15/2020, it is now down to 3% so maybe our efforts are helping. However, they still keep running the commercials of the idiot (and now proven liar) Dr. Fauci. His commercial still talks about how a low risk group person can infect a high risk group person therefore … you have to try to force BOTH groups to shut down themselves down from normal life. And that you do nothing to enable this process – a governor just makes an order for an entire world of people to shut themselves down and it then just happens.

   As to the liar matter: he has now admitted that he downplayed the effectiveness of masks for average people. He felt there was some over riding issue involved that justified doing that (because of their scarcity at the time). But his idiot side is still kicking in also: as of now, the most important people to have the best masks are the 65+ w/ underlying conditions. Now that there are ample masks to go around, when do we make this happen – so that the only vulnerable group in America finally gets protected? And we can get the moron crowd to stop ‘protecting’ the rest of us when we don’t need it? Get every vulnerable person access to the best N95 masks and we can finally get the real time death rate to where it should have been all along: virtually nil.


  There is another good benchmark for the virus. The real time death rate has dropped below 2% – due to only the young being a part of the new uptick.  But you are also being given confusing news. It is true, for example, that the case rate is back up at it’s peak levels. So, here is where we stand: We are having just 1/4 of the peak level death rates because the real time death rate is down to 1/4 of it’s previous levels (due to only the young being infected).

   It is the same thing we have said all along: all that it takes to solve the virus issue is just one competent governor who can do the basic things. That is, the things it takes to protect a small subgroup of the population (65+ w/ underlying conditions). Up to this point, however, no such competent governor has emerged yet.

   Thus, we hope the real time death rate will continue to remain low but it is not guaranteed. As to the spike in cases, there are no major national issues involved there either. The entire uptick of cases is happening in just a few warm weather states where young people are acting as expected – when they are no longer being forced into a lockdown.

   They are out with a frenzy, they are the only new people getting sick and there needs to be no problem anywhere since the virus will not kill them. Also, since this is a localized problem, there is no national crisis involved in any event. From the beginning: it should have been a County to County matter with County people leading the way – that is still the way it should be now.

   And if there are any new ‘hot’ counties? No problem: get to work with the 65+ w/underlying problems group of people in those counties. If they choose to be a part of a secure program, then give them one: start mobilizing Guardsmen to give them their provisions so they can remain at home and not expose themselves. Don’t resume half-baked programs that try to de-mobilize entire civilian populations.

   Get N95 masks out to all the people in this subgroup – so that any trips they do make out into the general population are way less risky. In short, hopefully, we will finally find that one competent governor – at some point during the current epidemic – that will do the most basic and obvious actions. We will see.


   Let me point out the problems with both ‘science’ and scientists. It is that ‘science’ does nothing but collect your data for you. It does not do your thinking for you or tell you how you should think. You still have to use the correct logical reasoning processes to get to the correct conclusions. Thus science, per se, proves nothing and tells you nothing – you still have to be able to think correctly as a person to get the correct answers.

   A second point about scientists: suppose a scientist told you that you could destroy all of the enemy submarines by raising the temperature of the ocean to boil them out. This is, arguably, a true statement – but still an irrelevant one since the idea is, inherently, unworkable. Similarly, it is true that, if you can hide the entire world under a rock long enough then you could stop everyone from getting sick. But it is just as irrelevant as the anti-submarine warfare suggestion.

   This is why Fauci and Co. will always be impractical failures: it has always been an inherently unworkable idea. Thus, all the dire warnings about not adhering to an inherently impossible game plan are, therefore, worthless. And also threatening to democracy: because they can not accept that they are simply trying to force society to follow a dumb plan- and thus will keep blaming society for it’s ‘selfishness’ at not following it. This is what you get when you have ‘scientific’ dictators.

   More problems with ‘scientific’ dictators: they are also the stereotypical eggheads. They can’t think of simple concepts or change course when new data shows them to be wrong. They are ignoring data from Norway that shows 3 feet to be a sufficient social distance (even though it is a total game changer). They are ignoring the data that a triaged approach (where you can concentrate on just a small part of the population) can stop most deaths since most people are in no danger. They can’t understand simple concepts like using plexiglass (and other tools) besides social distancing to block the disease, etc.

   Nor are they able to take advantage of new positive data. The real time death rate has dropped near the 1% mark – due to only the young being a part of the new uptick – thereby debunking another ‘scientific’ truism: that it is not physically possible to just shield the elderly from the rest of us. Then why are we successfully doing it?

   What’s more, how did we regain the ability to do it after having previously lost it – if it is really an impossible task? The rate did spike all the way up to 10% but is now trending down. So how could we have regained the low rates again if it is a physically impossible event? But, per the last update,  “you are also being given confusing news.”

   It is true, for example, that the case rate is running at peak levels but this has to happen if we are ever going to allow people to resume their lives. It cannot be avoided but we are avoiding deaths which, at the end of the day, is all that matters. Again, a simple concept that Fauci and Co. can’t put a simple grip on.

   But we also have to repeat something else from our last update: “It is the same thing we have said all along: all that it takes to solve the virus issue is just one competent governor who can do the basic things. That is, the things it takes to protect a small subgroup of the population (65+ w/ underlying conditions). Up to this point, however, no such competent governor has emerged yet.”

  So here is where Trump must, reluctantly, step in. He can no longer be a slave to federalism and to the governors. The governors are still totally incompetent; they are still trying to control the virus by shutting down the general population rather than triaging. That is, you just focus on the small part of the population that actually needs the help.

   Thus, it is time for Trump to federalize the National Guard and get them mobilized himself. We are not going to get the basic competence that we need out of any of the 50 State governors. There are just three measures needed: 1) give the vulnerable access to a  ‘hotline’ to call if they need someone to get them provisions without exposing themselves 2) another item from the last update: “Get N95 masks out to all the people in this subgroup – so that any trips they do make out into the general population are way less risky” and 3) make frequent public announcements advising the elderly to make use of these resources to stay out of harms way. And, also, to use the high quality masks made available to them if they must go out for any reason.

   These three measures will eliminate virtually all deaths from the virus irrespective of the number of cases. And, in the end, the uptick is just another case of the ‘smartest’ of people not being able to understand the simplest of concepts. For, ultimately, it is good rather than bad – it is the only way to get rid of a virus: let it burn itself out among the low risk part of the population. This causes the virus to leave us more quickly (returning us to safety), it still (ultimately) kills less people rather than more people – and the low risk people can still support the economy while this is all happening.

   In short – in line with what we are talking about here – we are still not finding that one competent governor that we had hoped for. Trump will have to act for them. And that is why I call these updates the Keep it up! updates. We must keep it up – everyone reading these words must talk these ideas up to anyone and everyone you may know who can get through to Trump and Co. with the right advice. He, too, is still captive to the incompetence of the ‘science’ crowd and, therefore, needs us to try to do a ‘breakthrough’ – with some competent ideas. Again, per the last update: we will see.

If you have not read the following article, do so after you read today’s virus update. Click below to read the article:


   Three themes today: First I am going to start with a shame on the Governor of New Jersey for an obviously immoral act. Next, I will do a complement to the average citizen in dealing with the virus. However, I will have to finish – in a somewhat roundabout way – by shaming my fellow Christian believers. So …


   We begin with the governor of New Jersey: he is using fake numbers to deliberately inflate his state’s death toll. And, thereby, keep his justification in place for keeping everyone shut down. (To research this for yourself: look at the sudden, massive increase in his death rates – and compared with everywhere else in the country). But, as both a Christian believer and a long time follower of politics, there is nothing surprising here. Power corrupts absolutely and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is more such fakery to be found by other people in power. But to some good news:


   While we have gotten little help from those in power (and plenty of corruption), the people have the matter pretty much figured out for themselves. From the beginning, all that was needed was mobilizing more people to take care of the elderly and the infirm – not the insane notion of trying to demobilize an entire civilian population. However – at least up to this point – none of the 50 Governors, Republican or Democrat, has seen the obviousness of this. And, as I have stated from the start, the President is so poorly advised by the ‘professional’ medical types, it is unlikely that he will come around to the obvious either. Trump still has my support; his medical advisers do not.

   But, at the John Q. Citizen level, much has been done that is good. The elderly, themselves, are getting better and wiser at staying out of harm’s way. The younger and fitter population has also gotten wiser and is being very careful at how much they mingle with the elderly or the infirm. And, hopefully, the elder care workers seem to have gotten their act together better at protecting the elderly from becoming infected. Thus, the death rate has declined from nearly a 10% rate at its height to around a 1% rate now. 

   Also, the free enterprise system is helping too. There has been an enormous ramp up in the number and types of delivery services available to the elderly and the infirm. And done to help them in their efforts to stay out of harm’s way. But nothing of any real effect has come from out of the government or the medical ‘professionals’. However, I now have to come to the third, and the most unpleasant, theme in this narration of events.


   My fellow Christian believers: I have written before about the need for just one competent governor to do the basic items it takes to protect the elderly and the infirm – and none of them has done so. In some of my writings, I also considered the thought of Trump stepping in with these necessary measures. But what if neither Trump (nor any of the 50 State governors) ever figures out the obvious: that is, the simple measures that they can do to cordon off the elderly and the infirm from exposure to the virus? And that this is all that has ever been needed to control the epidemic?

   If we could have just gotten the elderly and infirm out of harm’s way, we would have still lost way less people to the virus. And even if everyone else in the entire country got infected. But now: why do I pick on my fellow Christian believers? It should be obvious – in spite of the failure of the various government bodies involved have they made it illegal for others to do a mass mobilization on behalf of the elderly?

   So, why can’t we mobilize our Church people to do exactly what I have been talking about? Sure, it annoys the H___ out of me that no one is smart enough to mobilize a hotline for the elderly – that would enable them to get the help they need at staying out of the way of the virus. But why can’t we mobilize ourselves – as churches – to do these types of things? Make our own volunteers available to get things like food provisions (and high quality masks) out to the vulnerable so that they can stay out of harms way? Sure, I wish either Trump (or any of the 50 State governors) would be smart enough to do something like that with the National Guard – but how does that stop us from volunteering to do it ourselves?

   We are at a pivotal moment with the virus. All it will take to break the virus is just one massive mobilization effort – additional to what the market place and the John Q. Citizens have already done – to finally get the elderly secured. And – with that – eliminate virtually all deaths from the virus since it is (primarily) an elderly person’s disease.

   Now do you want a final reason for the churches being the ones to mobilize this type of an effort? Well look at the type of PR we are getting by acting like hapless bystanders rather than mobilizing our own people. I don’t like Democrat Governors with their keeping pot shops essential and churches not. They are, effectively, saying that people smoking some really great dope is more essential than going to church – but what have we done, however, to prove ourselves to be essential? Like, say, helping the elderly and infirm during this crisis?

   Perhaps there is even a “It serves us right” aspect to this? If you don’t like some one taking a pot shot at you for being non-essential then there is a simple solution. Why not prove them wrong by engaging in some essential behavior? Seems logical to me but, as I have been closing out a lot of these most recent updates with: we will see.




   We are right to keep pushing back against those who have hijacked the Coronavirus issue. And to be on the lookout for corruption and political maneuvering. I have warned about inflated death totals vis-a-vis New Jersey before. In a more comprehensive study, there are several states with a questionable history of reporting deaths. They are Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and some other possible bad actors to lesser degrees.

   But, possibly worse, it is also possible for a small amount of bad actors to sabotage those states that have BEEN doing it correctly. Over the last several days Texas and Florida have had some questionable entries. I will focus strictly on 7/29 for some worst case examples. In Texas there has a 4:55 am entry that purported to show 5,883 cases already being registered to their state with 82 deaths suddenly popping in before anyone else was reporting anything. But … as the day wore on the death total rose to 302 while the case total never changed – and all day!!! It remained, from 4:55 am to 8:29 pm at exactly 5,883 reports.

   How do you get nearly 6,000 people reporting themselves sick before 5 o’clock in the morning? And then no one further – in an entire state – reports themselves sick for the rest of the day? The answer is that you don’t – and not in Florida either. On this same day in Florida: it had passed its’ previous days total of cases by 10:40 am at 9,446 cases with 216 deaths. Then … it also went into the Texas Pause. At 4:12 pm neither total had moved any. At the end of the reporting day at 8:29 pm their gauges had still not budged an inch. It closed out with 9,446 cases and 216 deaths – the same numbers from the beginning of the day!

   So … what giveth? All I can say is beware: everything is so political now that people in the medical establishment will even fabricate death totals and cases. This is not the first time for this type of behavior either: We have had other cases of good numbers coming in – to suddenly become reversed under questionable circumstances. Take this warning seriously: medical doctors in the field are almost totally above reproach – but the medical establishment are two bit shysters and political hacks down to every pore of their being. They are not above lying in regards to either data or policy. What follows is an example of a lying fest in regards to policy.



   And you have probably guessed the subject matter: hydroxychloroquine. Fortunately, you don’t need to be a medical doctor. Instead, I know how to be a good logician – and therefore can usually decipher the ‘scientific’ types. Here are the 3 items that must be a part of any properly done hydroxy study:

   1) It must involve a dosage of 600 mg on a first day application, followed by a 400 mg dosage on the next five days. This is what was put forward as the regimen that helps the virus sufferer. So how does a continuous run of studies, that only use 200mg, disprove this? 

   2) It must involve only people who are 65+ years of age (with underlying conditions). It is a physical impossibility, and will always be a physical impossibility, to prove a statistically significant decline in deaths in the 65- population. And that is because there are not a statistically significant number of deaths that even occur in the 65- population. Thus, proving a statistically significant decline in this group will never be possible. Example:

   Even in the 45-65 aged group there is only a 1 in 400 chance of a fatality – based on records keeping. It is now known that there are probably 10 times more cases than reported. Thus, the chance of death, even among people 45-65 is probably only one chance in several thousands rather than just 1 in several hundreds. The upshot is that most of them will recover no matter what. Thus, proving a statistically significant reduction in non-recoveries clearly can’t happen – with this group.

   3) It must involve use at the earliest possible moment of intervention – which should be self evident. Nothing works better as conditions worsen – hydroxychloroquine or anything else.

   Also, all of this inane blather about cardiac arrhythmia is easy to disprove: when you combine both science and your own logical reasoning. This, however, is something that most journalists are incapable of. On the one side of the argument: not a single user of hydroxy has ever died from cardiac problems. On the other side: but it is a possible side effect. So, how does logical reasoning resolve such a matter?

   Easy: both things are true – it is a possible side effect but it is not a dangerous possible side effect. Or how has no one ever actually wound up in danger from it? Because it is such a standard side effect, and of such a predictable nature, all doctors already know how to deal with this side effect. Thus, this side effect never kills anyone – and it is very unlikely that it ever will.

  All medications have possible side effects; this does not render them unsafe. It merely renders them to be of a prescription nature. The side effect does prove that it needs to be a prescription medication; but it proves exactly the opposite about the side effect being dangerous. If the side effect was also a dangerous side effect then why are there zero cardiac deaths from the 65 year use of this medication?

   But back to my posting above this one: doctors will lie their a-s-s es off for politics and other corrupt reasons. I have statistical proof from my tracking their abuses at death reports. And I have a logical proof in what you have read above. Every doctor knows that hydroxy is a safe drug and that the side effect that they often refer to is not a dangerous side effect because all doctors know how to deal with it and have always successfully done so. Thus, the zero actual deaths.


   By analogy: You have Teddy Wheeler and the Chaos Theory. He is the Mayor of Portland who knows precisely when there is going to be a riot every night; but he has still let there be one every night for 80 nights. It is called the Chaos Theory – you just let there be enough random chaos long enough and the existing social order eventually has to fall. This has always been a well documented tactic of Marxist guerilla movements but is now being used by Democrat party politicians for an election year.

  But what this article is is a virus update – and how the States of Texas, Florida and Arizona are under a partisan attack with a form of the Chaos Theory as it relates to an epidemic. There are people that are massively inflating the death tolls in these states as a partisan gambit for the current election; a little like Teddy Wheeler. In the virus case, what is being done is being done on paper so it does not seem quite as bad as abetting rioters.

   But it is. It is just another way to keep up as much fear, chaos and confusion as one can do just to see how the dust will settle once it all dies down. Grotesquely amoral  – and I will let you judge for yourself whether I am right about it happening. Below is a hyperlink to the Report we filed with the Governor of Texas. Decide for yourself.

Dear Governor



    I have made the accusation that we are getting punked by someone in the reporting of the coronavirus death tolls. I do not have the resources to run this to ground so I will do a ‘Hail Mary’ play instead. There is an outside chance of the following events happening:

      1) On Augusts 19, 20, 21 and 22 the coronavirus deaths will keep breaking the 1000 mark for these next 4 days – keeping us in a “Oh, my God” state of mind.

      2) On just the two days of Augusts 23 and 24 it will have another significant drop of several hundred deaths and go well below the 1000 mark – putting us in a temporary “Oh, thank God” state of mind.

     3) On the 25th of August it will revert back to the 1000+ zone sending us through more (and more and more) “Oh God”, “Thank God”, “Oh God” , “Thank God” cycles.

   Before I say anything more, we should first wait to see what happens over the next several days. If you want to keep tabs on this for yourself, here is the link:

      Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   I am putting something to the test; let’s see what happens.


   Update on the test’s progress: In the posting below this one, I made several predictions about the coronavirus over the next few days. Here is the progress on how my predictions are holding up so far:

      Prediction 1: On Augusts 19, 20, 21 and 22 the coronavirus deaths will keep breaking the 1000 mark for these next 4 days – keeping us in a “Oh, my God” state of mind. What happened: the death toll for the virus was listed as 1247, 1056, 1743 and 955 respectively for these 4 days.

   However, the 1743 number of 8/21 comes from the State of Texas being assessed a death toll of 833 people in one single day – an erroneous number event that has occurred before in Texas. Several weeks ago, it was assessed a death toll of 633 people in a single day – which was later walked back and reduced to a much lower level when the numbers were double checked. Look for this to happen again with the 833 since it is even more inflated than the earlier number.

   Starting tonight, the second phase of my predictions will kick in and I will write back on the progress of the predictions when they occur. And, again, you can check this progress yourself – as it goes along – at the link below:

      Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States



   Update on the test’s progress: In the two posting below this one – On a 8/19/2020 posting I made several predictions about the coronavirus and how the death numbers would go over the next several days. This was done to prove that the coronavirus death numbers are massively faked by people operating for partisan political purposes. Otherwise: how could someone predict in advance what would be happening with them?

   The predictions had three phases to them and here is the progress on how my predictions are holding up so far:

      Prediction 1:  I made an advanced prediction on 8/19 that “On Augusts 19, 20, 21 and 22 the coronavirus deaths will keep breaking the 1000 mark for these next 4 days – keeping us in a “Oh, my God” state of mind.” What happened: the death toll for the virus was listed as 1247, 1056, 1743 and 955 respectively for these 4 days.

   In the 8/23/2020 posting (the one immediately below this one) I gave the update on how Phase 1 of my predictions had checked out. And the paragraph above is what I wrote. I then wrote the following “Starting tonight, the second phase of my predictions will kick in and I will write back on the progress of the predictions when they occur.” I am now doing that and here is the update. 

   Prediction 2. On 8/19/2020, I gave an advanced prediction that on Augusts 23 and 24 that the death numbers would do a dramatic reversal – and drop by several hundred deaths on each of those two days. Just as my Prediction 1 had the deaths be over 1000 for several precisely predicted days, Prediction 2 occurred precisely the way that I stated also.

   On August 23, the coronavirus death toll only came in at only 416 deaths – the predicted drop of several hundred deaths between that day and the one before it. The prediction was that this about face will last exactly two days and the second day involved, August 24, occurred as predicted. It came in with only 489 deaths. So we are down to the Phase 3 of my predictions.

   My third prediction is that tonight, after all of the tallying is done, that the death tolls will revert back to the same bad numbers as before. That we will go back to a 1000+ death count for the next few days again. And, again, you can check this progress yourself – as it goes along – at the link below:

      Coronavirus Bell Curve | Daily COVID-19 Statistics for the United States

   At no later than 10 pm tonight, you should be able to go to this link and read for yourself what today’s numbers will be. And whether my third and final prediction will have occurred as stated. Or you can wait for tomorrow’s update where I will do another write up on the totally faked up k _ _ p that is going on with the coronavirus.


   So, what happened last night? My seven day coronavirus prediction (made on August 19) was for Augusts 19, 20, 21 and 22 to stay at 1000+ deaths per day. (The death tallies for these dates was 1247, 1056, 1124 and 955). Next, that on exactly the next two days, Augusts 23 and 24, the deaths would drop down by several hundred deaths. (The death tallies for these two dates were 416 and 489). Lastly, that the very next day after that, August 25 (last night), that the death rate would spike back up again to 1000+. (The death tally came in at 1225).

   So … how did I do what I just did? You are (presumably) talking about totally random events, on a national scale and in regards to things that have yet to be tallied. But I still successfully gave the precise dates when the tallies would take a sharp turn downwards. And I then  gave the precise date when the tallies would take a sharp turn in yet another direction. If there is nothing amiss here, then how did I do that? I will be compiling the data over the next several days and will then demonstrate – precisely – that there is, indeed, something amiss here, what it is and, therefore, how I was able to do what I just did. 

   This will be the subject of a future write up.



   For those who have an interest, it is time to refer back to my 8/17/2020 posting. It had a link in it attached to a Report to the Governor of Texas. The report stated that there were massive irregularities in the death counts for Texas, Arizona, Florida and elsewhere. However, this is also why we should not give up – Laura Ingraham (and the State of Texas) have caught up to us on this matter. It was just reported tonight (on the Ingraham Angle) that Texas is now aware of massive irregularities – and that they are said to be of very large proportions.

   Also, I have forwarded another report: I have made another round of my ‘psychic’ predictions on what will happen to the coronavirus between September 1 and September 8. Again, one should never give up – and here is the logic that I hope someone will finally pick up on. Let’s say you see two people with a deck of cards. Normally, a deck of cards is a random matter where you can not pre-guess what will happen.

   But suppose the deck has been rigged and I am in the know on how it has happened? Then I can know every card that will turn up as each one is turned up. Conversely, if you see these two people with one of them doing a guess of each new card as it is turned up then you know – and to a mathematical certainty – that it is a rigged deck combined with someone in the know about how it is rigged. There is no other logical conclusion. So, while I will do it with less fanfare, here are my latest ‘psychic’ predictions:

   On the precise dates of Septembers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the RECORDED death rates for the corona virus will be around the 5500 mark for these combined days. Also, these 5500 deaths will be relatively evenly spread out amongst the 5 days involved. I know that this will still be true (no matter actually happens with the virus) because this is where the fakery is at. It will not be possible to get good RECORDED death numbers on any of these five dates no matter what actually happens.
   On the precise dates of Septembers 6 and 7 there will be a sudden set of good death numbers. Between these two days there will only be several hundred deaths combined for both days. These are the dates when some accurate numbers actually come in.
   On the precise date of September 8 there will be a 1000+ death mark (probably closer to 1200) that will be RECORDED to have occurred. This, again, will be the recorded event regardless of what will actually occur. A promise though: this will be the last of my ‘psychic’ forecasts. Assuming you actually want to know what is going on, I will have my information ready.
   Thank you and one hopes this will help in the fight to expose some corrupt dealings.

   Pardon all of my extra fanfare but I had to make a point. Below is a reprint of my first round of ‘psychic’ predictions (about how the virus was going to react for several days into the future):

Start of Reprint:

   “So, what happened last night? My seven day coronavirus prediction (made on August 19) was for Augusts 19, 20, 21 and 22 to stay at 1000+ deaths per day. (The death tallies for these dates was 1247, 1056, 1124 and 955). Next, that on exactly the next two days, Augusts 23 and 24, the deaths would drop down by several hundred deaths. (The death tallies for these two dates were 416 and 489). Lastly, that the very next day after that, August 25 (last night), that the death rate would spike back up again to 1000+. (The death tally came in at 1225).

   So … how did I do what I just did? You are (presumably) talking about totally random events, on a national scale and in regards to things that have yet to be tallied. But I still successfully gave the precise dates when the tallies would take a sharp turn downwards. And I then  gave the precise date when the tallies would take a sharp turn in yet another direction. Then I did it again on yet another precise date and the next change of direction. If there is nothing amiss here, then how did I do that? I will be compiling the data over the next several days and will then demonstrate – precisely – that there is, indeed, something amiss here, what it is and, therefore, how I was able to do what I just did. “

End of Reprint

   Why was this so easy? It is because of the days of the week involved. The dates from August 18 to August 22 were the days Tuesday thru Saturday. And in all 21 weeks since the virus peaked (on 4/07/2020) these five days of the week are always the high yield days for virus fatalities. All I was predicting is that a 21 week old pattern would happen for the 22nd time.

   But then I predicted that on the precise next day – and for precisely that day and the next one afterwards – that there would be a dramatic fall off of the virus deaths. But it is, again, very easy. For the dates of August 23 and 24 were the days of Sunday and Monday. And in all 21 of the last weeks these two days of the week have always had a dramatic fall off. So, again, I was merely predicting that a 21 week pattern would still continue for a 22nd time.

   Similarly, it happened this same way with my prediction that the precise next day – after these two days – would then go back up again in a dramatic upsurge. And it was because this precise next day would be a Tuesday again. I was back to ‘predicting’ about a 21 week old pattern continuing for a 22nd week.

  But here is where you will need your moment of clarity. How can the death tallies follow a predictable pattern – of precise days of the week – where the deaths are (presumably) happening in radically different manners according to what day of the week that it is? The answer is that this can only happen if the tallies are totally erroneous – since a virus can never actually kill this way. A virus is never going to be, say, twice as likely to kill you on a Tuesday as it is on a Monday. Thus, if the tallies are being reported that way it is because they are being reported erroneously. But I had a second set of predictions.

   Below is the reprint of my latest prediction set:

   Start of Reprint:
   “1) On the precise dates of Septembers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the RECORDED death rates for the corona virus will be around the 5500 mark for these combined days. Also, these 5500 RECORDED deaths between these days will have the following spread: The heaviest concentration of deaths will be on Septembers 1 and 2 while the lightest spread on these days will be on Septembers 4 and 5. I know that this will still be true (no matter actually happens with the virus) because this is where the fakery is at. It will not be possible to get good RECORDED death numbers on any of these five dates no matter what actually happens with the virus.
   2) On the precise dates of Septembers 6 and 7 there will be a sudden set of good death numbers. Between these two days there will only be several hundred deaths combined for both days. These are the dates when some accurate numbers actually come in. Also, note how sudden the drop will be from September 5: there will be an upspike on September 8 that will be a much larger surge than the drop from September 5 to 6.
   3) On the precise date of September 8 there will be a 1000+ death mark (probably closer to 1200) that will be RECORDED to have occurred. This, again, will be the recorded event regardless of what will actually occur. A promise though: this will be the last of my ‘psychic’ forecasts. Assuming you actually want to know what is going on, I will have my information ready once all of my calculations are finalized.
   Thank you and one hopes this will help in the fight to expose some corrupt dealings.”
End of Reprint
   So what happened on my latest predictions? Everything went according to the predictions except for one piece of very good news (maybe). The days between Septembers 1 thru 5 (the days of the week were Tuesday thru Saturday) had around 5,000 deaths vs. the prediction of around 5,500 – within the margin of error. These days also broke down in line with predictions: The Septembers 1 and 2 had around 2,200 deaths while the dates of September 4 and 5 had around 1,700 deaths. The toll was slightly higher on the one set of days versus the other per the predictions. But, as you now know, all I did was take the same repeated pattern of 21 weeks and simply ‘predict’ it would happen for a 22nd one.
   The days of September 6 and 7 fell in line as predicted. Less people were recorded to have died on those two days (combined) than on the one day beforehand. Again, since these days were a Sunday and a Monday, there was no ‘psychic’ power involved. But what about the final prediction about the super surge of deaths on September 8 – a Tuesday? Actually, once you understand where my predictions are coming from there was nothing unsuccessful about what happened on Tuesday. Tuesday was a slow start in the Surge phenomenon but this effect continued on through the next day and ended up right where I said that it would – at 1163 RECORDED deaths. (I said it would end up close to 1200 in RECORDED deaths).
   Between Tuesday and Wednesday there was a whopping 6 standard deviations bulge in the death numbers – thus showing that we are still dealing in the impossible with what these numbers are saying. Also the overall score is accurate: in the last 22 weeks there has always been a Tuesday surge. In 20 of these occasions the surge all happened in the one day of a Tuesday; in 2 of these instances (yesterday was one of them) the surge still happened – and on a Tuesday schedule – it just took two days to get to a full impossible set of numbers. We are still dealing in fakery – recorded numbers that can’t possibly be happening that way in actual life. Also, look at the drawing for this last week (it is in the materials below and is the upper right picture in a drawing file.) You will see a visual representation of the same thing as all of my other ‘predictions’ and as all of the previous weeks: a visual proof of faked up numbers. So, look at the materials below:
   So what has still happened? This explanation segment is intended to tell you what has happened – not how. I will write up a Part 2 for “I Explain It All” very shortly – on the how of what has happened. This will shed more light on just how much evil some people are capable of. It is sometimes very scary – wait for Part 2 of “I Explain it All”.


(POSTED 9/17/2020)
    This is Part 2: it details the “how” of the fraudulent accounting of virus deaths. And I will start with what is actually the easy part: that it takes no cabal or major conspiracy to destroy democracy. People have no idea how vulnerable we all are to just a few amoral people at low levels in the national bureaucracy. Question: at what levels are virtually all prosecutions of criminals, counting of election ballots – and tabulating of corona virus deaths done at? The County level.
   For example: there is no city, state or federal involvement in the tallying of any ballots for any election. And if a County level bureaucrat allows a break in the chain of custody on how ballots are handled (and totally unsupervised work winds up being done with them) there is no civil or criminal penalty. Further, none of the mishandled ballots have ever been rejected from being counted.
   Thus, it is not difficult for low level bureaucrats to falsify the ballots that determine our democracy. And all that is involved in the false tallying of virus deaths is just a low level bureaucrat being allowed to do unsupervised paper work. Which is then designed to affect our democracy as much as the false tallying of ballots: the Resistance has put all of its chips down on using the virus to manipulate people and to get their votes.
   Are you still thinking that this is a right wing conspiracy claim? Then I will call a George Soros to back me up. He is someone who is, essentially, a billionaire insurrectionist. He does not believe in America as it is today and wants it abolished into something totally other than what it is today. In short, he is driven to use the billions he has made from America in an effort to destroy America.
   And what has raised eyebrows lately about the way he is using these billions? It is his mass push to elect low level bureaucrats in County governments. Thus, I know I am right about the vulnerabilities we have to just a few amoral, low level bureaucrats. It is because George Soros has confirmed that for me by the way that he is spending his money.
   Under his influence, many County District Attorneys (who actually control most of the criminal justice system) are becoming political operatives for the Resistance – rather than simply defending the people against law breakers. Blue County Elections officials (who control all of the ballot tallying in their Blue Counties) are no longer impartial operators of the democratic process. They will allow massive breaches in the chain of custody for ballots: thereby, effectively, destroying democracy by a low level bureaucrat simply letting things happen – and doing nothing themselves personally.
   So why should it be difficult for an unsupervised bureaucrat to simply do unsupervised paperwork – with an agenda in mind? Thus, the first part of my “how” explanation is not only easy but (in my view) uncomfortably easy on how it could be done. If you have the amorality to do a false tally of ballots why not a false tally of corona virus deaths – if you hope the panic involved will create more favorable ballots for you in the next election cycle?
   Now done to the technical aspects: the Days of the Week phenomenon. This is also an easy matter. Sometimes the obvious is simply the obvious; sometimes that which is right in front of you should simply be judged as that which is right in front of you. And that is all that we have here.
   For whatever reason, we have a fraudulent process that can only sustain itself for part of each week rather than all seven days. We have a virus that is fraudulently being counted as being 5 days on (Tuesdays thru Saturdays) and two days off (Sundays and Mondays) simply because something about their process (whatever it is) can only be done on those 5 days of the week. It is a process that simply seems to run out of steam, if you will. 
   The process totally collapses on all Sundays and Mondays and, increasingly, starts to run out of material to work with on Fridays and Saturdays. These days are starting to abate on some on the process – but not in a total way that Sundays and Mondays always do. Also, some States have stopped inflating their numbers as the real amount of virus deaths have become very small. Apparently, when trying to pad numbers, you need to have at least some significant amount of real numbers available to apply the padding to.
   Now do I, personally, have the resources to run all aspects of this to ground myself? No, I do not. But it should not be needed. I, and I think clearly so, do believe in being analytical – but you still do not want to over-analyze. Sometimes the obvious is simply the obvious. Since it is not physically possible for a virus to kill people on a neat line schedule (with different killing patterns per each specific day of the week) then it is not physically possible for virus death reporting of this nature to be any thing other than a fraud. Also, there are obvious numbers involved as well:
   The deaths, of people being hospitalized for Covid-19, are down by 85% since the peak death rates. Therefore, the actual deaths (from just Covid-19 itself) are only the following formula: 15% times the rate at which people are being more, or less, hospitalized for Covid. That is, if the deaths are down by 85% then 15% is all that is left of how many deaths there still are. Compared, that is, as to whether there is either a higher or lower number of people being hospitalized.
   If 85% less people die from the hospital (but twice as many are getting hospitalized) then you would still have about 30% as many deaths – 15% times the factor of 2 (twice as many people being hospitalized). On the other hand, if the number is unchanged, then the 15% rate is the correct rate for how many people are truly dying from Covid. But the hospitalization numbers are still down from the peak of the epidemic. Therefore: it is a physical impossibility for the Covid deaths to be much higher than 15% of the peak numbers.
   But the RECORDED numbers have us at nearly 50% of the number of Covid deaths – around an extra 35% that has no truly logical way to account for it. (Since virtually all people who die from Covid die in the hospitals – where the deaths are down by 85% of the people (not 50%) and with less people being there with Covid – and not more). Now compare this against the normal assumptions about my numbers.
   The low death tallies on Sundays and Mondays are correct with the numbers of 85% less deaths. And the extra deaths tallied between Tuesdays and Saturdays make up close to that additional 35% that has no proper accounting. Ergo, what I have said: the padding of the death numbers takes place between Tuesdays and Saturdays (where the extra 35% can be accounted for) and does not take place on Sundays and Mondays (where the death rates are consistent with verifiable actual numbers). Thus, what we are obviously observing is simply what we are obviously observing: There is a massive tampering process that, apparently, can only be done on the days between Tuesday and Saturday – and they haven’t been able to do on Sunday/Monday.  
   I do not know exactly why their process works that way but I still do know (and to a moral certitude) that that is still the way their process works. Others, with more resources, will need to take it from here.


   Talk about walking the walk. Trump has said, and correctly so, that we must still face our lives and keep going. That we can not let a virus destroy America as America. And, contrary to what his critics say, he is not an idiot or a total self-server: he has had numerous prior brushes with the corona virus to know that he is as much at risk as any other person. But he stuck to his guns – and now he continues to stick to his guns.

   Secondly, he has always maintained that we are getting better all the time at treating the virus. And, contrary to what his critics say, he does not say things as a strictly one-dimensional office seeker trying to get re-elected: when he became ill what did he do? Did he suddenly start wetting himself or did he remain as unafraid as he had previously talked his talk? He has certainly appeared to maintain his composure and certainly seems assured that what he has been saying is true.

   This will still give him no credibility with those who hate him. But it gives him credibility by me. And he is a living example of the correctness of what he has consistently said: quit living in fear of the virus. We must be willing to live with reasonable risks and keep living. And we are, in fact, getting better all the time at treating the disease: he seemed totally unafraid and his confidence has proved to be justified. So, has he finally made his case or what?



   For those of you who are not familiar with our Pennsylvania political operations: Here it is in writing that we are not ‘conspiracy’ crazy about what is going on with the virus. Here is my brief Q and A letter to one of our statisticians about our breaking story on the virus:


   I want to combine a couple of small observations of my own with your final memo BUT I do not believe in misstating things. Can the following things be fairly stated:

   My Question: My original concerns – that brought me to you – were that the death tallies for the U.S. coronavirus had some potentially bad irregularities; and it was questionable how certain you could be with our death tallies. After doing your own analysis, are my concerns justified?

   His answer: “Yes”

   My Question: Could these irregularities have the potential to create tens of thousands of errors in the U.S. death tallies?

   His answer: “Yes”

   My Question: Are the WHO (World Health Organization) death tallies supposed to be real-time, accurately verified data – and done at the highest levels of the U.S. government?

   His answer: “Yes, as far as my knowledge. You can verify it once in the website.”

   My Question: In spite of this, is it still true that the death tallies – as recorded – could not possibly have happened in the precise manner in which they are alleged to have happened?

   His answer: “According to me it’s yes”

   I did conclude with “if possible, would you be able to give Yes or No answers to these questions?” Which he did. Finally, so you will know that I did not quote him out of context, his verbatim answer letter now follows:

       “The answers to your questions are as follows and it follows in the same order you sent me.

1) Yes

2) Yes 

3) Yes as far as my knowledge. You can verify it once in the website

4) According to me it’s yes”

   And that was his equally to-the-point answer letter. So, according to at least one statistician that was chosen for me by a professional association – no advanced screening or cherry picking was done – we are not crazy. The data is, indeed, so badly mishandled that the errors in the death tallies can be off by many tens of thousands.

   So … on to a second of three matters. I had this statistician look at the WHO database and it revealed that impossibility that I have often mentioned: a virus that kills people on a neat line schedule. My other statistician has looked at the John Hopkins database that is contained in the site. This also shows the same impossibility: a virus that kills in a neat line schedule. But this leads to an even weirder point.

   It is that there is now a third impossibility involved. For the two databases generate two totally different sets of kill numbers for the same identical days. And I mean by differences of several hundred deaths between their tallies – that are supposed to be for identical dates. Why someone would do this is a big mystery but it is still beyond dispute that it has been done. For, as always, I urge the reader to look it up for themselves.

   The databases that are used in the U.S. all read one way: Sundays and Mondays are all low kill days, Tuesdays thru Fridays are all high kill days and Saturdays are the transition day. The WHO database reads: Tuesdays and Wednesdays are all low kill days, Thursdays thru Sundays are all high kill days and Mondays are the transition days. Thus, you have two different databases each with an impossibility records keeping. However, the third impossibility is that the WHO database is supposed to be compiled only by copying, verbatim, what is in our U.S. databases. So how can all U.S. databases read one way while the WHO database (which is just supposed to be a verbatim copy transmitted to the WHO) read out as a totally different set of numbers?

    But down to some good news as a third point. Because of this final bizarre antic with the WHO database, several good things have occurred:

      1) It gives the entire game away for how The Process works

      2) It gives us a short pool of suspects: pertaining to someone who has undetermined motives for being connected to the Resistance. That is, someone who would have to be high up in the Trump Administration – and is a part of the manufacturing of false death tally numbers. And, amazingly,

      3) It makes it possible for us to reconstruct what the correct death tallies are!

   On 1) we now know that the people involved have the correct tallies available to them. This correct tally is then subjected to a process that inflates the numbers from there. This has to be true or how could someone (the person doing the WHO numbers) remove this process from the way it was being applied to the John Hopkins database numbers – the Sunday/Monday phenomenon? And then reassign this process back to these numbers but in a different way, i.e., there is no longer a Sunday/Monday phenomenon in the WHO numbers. It is now a Tuesday/Wednesday one instead.

   On 2) Whoever is doing this has to know about The Process and how it works. They did not simply copy the John Hopkins data over. If they had, then both sets of databases would have had the same Sunday/Monday phenomenon. Instead, they somehow created a totally new set of numbers – but one that still used The Process: just simply on different days of the week. And the number of people who are assigned this duty (of posting our numbers out to the World Health Organization) is only a small number of people and who all work for the federal government in some high level capacity. Thus, the pool of suspects involved is a very small number.

   On 3) it is the low days that are the accurate days – and the high ones are the ones when The Process is operating. In the John Hopkins databases The Process operates on Tuesdays thru Saturdays and does not operate on Sundays and Mondays. Therefore, we can use the JH (John Hopkins) to deduce what the correct totals are for all Sundays and Mondays – two days of correct tallies are now accounted for.

   Next, the WHO databases use The Process on Thursdays thru Mondays and do not use it on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Therefore, we can use the WHO to deduce what the correct totals are for all Tuesdays and Wednesdays – four days of correct tallies are now accounted for. And next we have another effect of The Process being staggered: it allows corrections to be figured on the days where The Process is working.

   In the WHO database all Mondays are Transition days and have the correct Monday tallies PLUS the inflation due to The Process. But in the JH database, all Mondays are left out of The Process and therefore have the correct numbers period. Thus, we can now take the Monday tally from the WHO data (correct amount of deaths PLUS The Process) and subtract the Monday tally from the JH data (just the correct amount of deaths only) and we have what The Process was for the Transition Day amount. We can now subtract this correction from the JH Transition Day (a Saturday) to get the correct Saturday amount. So we now have the ability to get the accurate counts for a fifth day of the week – Saturday.

   Finally, a similar process occurs for all Thursdays and Fridays. In the JH data, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are high kill days while the WHO data is correct for these two days. Thus, you can subtract the low kill numbers from the one set of data away from the high kill numbers of the other set – and you have the corrections for what The Process does on its first two days of operating. Now you can subtract these corrections from the Thursday and Friday numbers of the WHO database (these are the first two days of The Process as it is done by the WHO data) and you have the correct numbers for all Thursdays and Fridays.

   If you got lost on any of the particulars: don’t worry about it. The principle is simple – both databases are running on a predictable, neat-line schedule. And then, because two different databases are involved that offset each other – different days are involved – you can use the comparisons of the two sets of data to weed out the tampered parts of it from the good parts. Which leads back to why I described a high level Trump person as having undetermined motives.

   The people involved with the John Hopkins database irregularities are doing it in such a way that it obscures who is, in fact, doing it. It also (clearly) is trying to obscure the accurate death tallies. But the person (or persons) who are responsible for the WHO database irregularities are doing it in such a way that it puts a bulls-eye on their backs – and get them identified with these types of goings-ons. Also, were it not for their bizarre maneuver, it would have remained impossible to get to the correct death tallies. So their motives are a mystery for now. 

   Thus, I will prove to be a man of my word. In the special news bulletins that were a part of the Pennsylvania political operations, I stated “ – where you will hear news you will never hear elsewhere.” At least as of now, I am the only place on Planet Earth where the correct corona virus death tallies are now publicly available. Going forward, and for as long as the data manipulation keeps continuing, I will have a seven day stretch of correct numbers being posted at this web site by 7 pm on every Saturday evening. Here is the first set of correct death tallies – they relate to Saturday the 10th of October thru Friday the 16th of October:

     Saturday, October 10th:           332

     Sunday, October the 11th:        400

     Monday, October the 12th:      298

     Tuesday, October the 13th:      487

     Wednesday, October the 14th: 335

     Thursday, October the 15th:    389

     Friday, October the 16th:         234

   The upshot is this: the WHO database (that is corrupted in one manner) says that 4861 people perished from the corona virus during these seven days. The JH database (that is corrupted in another manner – even though they are supposed to produce identical numbers) says that 4835 people perished from the corona virus.

   The correct total for these seven days is actually 2475 people perishing from the corona virus. It is still a terrible number but represents a virus that is substantially under control. Especially when you look at how it is still a novel virus and the numbers have been either stable or declining for a long time. The President’s corona record is good.

   So a final admonition for our friends in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere): if you think this story is important then be here at this site every Saturday night at 7 pm and encourage others to be here. You can use a fairly good draw card: I am the person who claims to know exactly how the numbers are being tampered with, and, therefore am the only person on Planet Earth who is currently posting the correct virus numbers out on the internet. It’s quite the claim but you have heard the evidence – is it enough evidence to at least peak your curiosity and guarantee that you will be here every Saturday night???



   Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 10/17/2020 to 10/23/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 10/17/2020  514 vs. 623 (John Hopkins) vs. 874 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 10/18/2020  432 vs. 432 (John Hopkins) vs. 998 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 10/19/2020  479 vs. 479 (John Hopkins) vs. 588 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 10/20/2020  472 vs. 899 (John Hopkins) vs. 472 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 10/21/2020  510 vs. 1228 (John Hopkins) vs. 510 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 10/22/2020  429 vs. 946 (John Hopkins) vs. 856 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 10/23/2020  348 vs. 881 (John Hopkins) vs. 1066 (World Health Organization)

   And, as one famed broadcaster used to put it, that was the week that was. The totals? According to the 
John Hopkins database, 5488 people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the 
World Health Organization database, 5364 people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. 
Whereas the true number was actually just 3184 people during this 7 day period. But that is the lesser 
important issue involved here about Biden's running mate - Covid 19.

   The more important issue? It is this: why do we allow fear campaigns to work in the first place – regardless of what the numbers may have been? There is no other way, no other way, no other way to get an epidemic behind you except to navigate your way through it as smartly as you can. That is all that there is.

   And what about a country that used to have a religious upbringing – and in connection with such matters? Don’t you still remember “Yea, though I walk (or have to navigate) through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil?” It doesn’t read “I will immediately fold up like a cheap suit.” And, even if being religious doesn’t suit you, then what about just being logical?

   Suppose we allow yourselves to be a type of gutless person who will get rolled by every fear campaign? Then what would you expect a group of amoral political apparatchiks to do? Have mercy on your soul and try to console you? Or to play up whatever advantage you are willing to give them? We have to stop playing the sucker! The virus should never have been a political issue – and now it is being hijacked to do political operations with fake numbers.



   Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 10/24/2020 to 10/30/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 10/24/2020  460 vs. 762 (John Hopkins) vs. 1001 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 10/25/2020  427 vs. 427 (John Hopkins) vs. 943 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 10/26/2020  519 vs. 519 (John Hopkins) vs. 821 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 10/27/2020  371 vs. 963 (John Hopkins) vs. 371 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 10/28/2020  479 vs. 1024 (John Hopkins) vs. 479 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 10/29/2020  303 vs. 1023 (John Hopkins) vs. 895 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 10/30/2020  514 vs. 944 (John Hopkins) vs. 1059 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we did seven days ago, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 5662 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 5569 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 3073 
people during this 7 day period. And we will restate: this is the lesser important issue involved here about Biden's running 
mate - Covid 19.

   And there are two more important issues.  We will restate one of them: why do we allow fear campaigns to work in the first place – regardless of what the numbers may have been? You can’t get an epidemic behind you except by navigating your way through it as smartly as you can. Full stop.

  This week, we will add a second more relevant issue. What does any of this have to do with why you should vote for Joe Biden? He talks like a complete fool on the issue for his own ideas. He actually made a commercial describing his new plan as increased testing and a mask mandate – except that we are already doing that under Trump. And the you-know-he-won’t-because-he-didn’t applies here also. 

   If his ‘plan’ would shut down the virus then why hasn’t that plan prevented the virus in the first place? We already, as a nation, had that plan in place when the latest resurgence of cases occurred. Thus it is, as far as his promised results go, another case of you know it won’t (have the promised results) because it didn’t. Except about Biden can describe in that same simple way.

   I am closing out with the same close out as last week: What about our country that used to have a religious upbringing – and in connection with such matters? Our Bibles say “Yea, though I walk (or have to navigate) through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil” It doesn’t say “I will fold up like a cheap suit.” And, as before, if being religious doesn’t suit you there is still the need to be logical.

   What always happens if we go gutless and can get rolled by any fear campaign? It is what you should expect.  A group of amoral political apparatchiks will play up whatever advantage you are willing to give them – so we need to stop playing the sucker! We state it again: the virus should never have been a political issue – and now it is being hijacked to do political operations with fake numbers.


   Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 10/31/2020 to 11/06/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 10/31/2020  573 vs. 889 (John Hopkins) vs. 1046 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 11/01/2020  370 vs. 370 (John Hopkins) vs. 1007 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 11/02/2020  497 vs. 497 (John Hopkins) vs. 813 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 11/03/2020  444 vs. 1146 (John Hopkins) vs. 444 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 11/04/2020  506 vs. 1141 (John Hopkins) vs. 506 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 11/05/2020  384 vs. 1109 (John Hopkins) vs. 1086 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 11/06/2020  497 vs. 1232 (John Hopkins) vs. 1132 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days ago, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 6384 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 6034 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 3271 
people during this 7 day period. 

   Also, as we do each week, there are some important additional issues involved that we will discuss. This week my investigation opened up 
a new set of problems with the corona virus databases. What follows is a letter that I wrote to the Director of the Washington Policy Center.

"Dear Director:
   Yesterday, I did a rushed visit to your office with a rushed piece of paper to leave behind. What the paperwork says is that the databases for the coronavirus death tallies have been hijacked. That the databases are, effectively, generating numbers (by being electronically altered through algorithms) and are no longer simply receptacles of numbers that are being input by human authors. As you now know, I noticed that the national databases had impossible tallies, i.e., all Sundays and Mondays are low kill days, all Tuesdays thru Fridays are high kill days, all Saturdays are a Transition day of mid-level killing, etc.
   And here is the BUT that I put into the subject line of this email: I was wrong on my initial impressions and did not assume this was the source for the erroneous numbers. I, initially, assumed it was just garbage in, garbage out by human operators. Thus, I looked at the national databases first and then at the State level databases next. Using the State of Texas as an example, I found what one would expect. The national data has the 4-1-2, 4-1-2, 4-1-2 repeating patterns: 4 high kill days, one mid level kill day and 2 low kill days – and all recurring on the same days of each week for more than 30 weeks in a row.
   Next, the Texas State databases do have the exact same statistical analomy: the same 4-1-2, 4-1-2, 4-1-2 repeating patterns. BUT I then went into the county databases and I should have had my answer as to who was doing what – and been able to take specific names of people to talk to about what was going on. For the state database is just a collection of the county databases that are the beginning points of the data collection effort. But, instead, the trail vanished.
   For the County level databases for the State of Texas appear to have total legitimacy. From the one piece of paper I left you, you can see that the State of Texas database does generate a Saturday average kill level of 100, a Sunday kill rate of 39, 62 for Monday and then a daily average kill rate of 106, 143, 141 and 122 for the rest of the days of the week. Ergo, if the Texas State database was correct you are 3 times more likely to die on on a Wednesday or a Thursday than you are on a Sunday.
   But the paper I left you then showed what would happen if you took the county numbers and added them all up. The numbers should be identical. The sum of all the County deaths in Texas would have to be equal to the total State of Texas deaths. But the two databases are totally divergent: the Sum-of-all-the-Counties numbers look completely legit. The average daily death rates are virtually the same for all seven days of the week – according to the Sum-of-all-the-Counties numbers.
   The other paper I left you showed the first 3 weeks in August (just for an example) for the State of Texas. It demonstrated that the two databases (Whole State of Texas vs. the Sum of Counties) are not only not the same but that they do not even correlate with each other very well. And yet the numbers, in reality, have to be the same. The sum of all counties in Texas numbers have to be equal to the total of Texas numbers. But the databases totally disagree with each other.
  This is why I am so concerned that no one has notified any higher authorities yet. What this means is that there may be no human error involved in the collection process – and yet the tallies can still be total garbage. The problem does NOT start, as I first assumed, with human misbehavior at the start – that is then loaded into the database. It instead starts afterwards: once the database is loaded, even if done totally properly, it is then subjected to a process that reworks the numbers.
   This is why it is not physically possible for President Trump to have a good day at the coronavirus death tallies between all Tuesdays and Fridays. And why he can only have a mediocre day on all Saturdays at the coronavirus death tallies. The database, itself, is electronically high jacked and is, effectively, generating numbers rather than simply receiving them. Thus, no matter what happens at the ground level – and even if all the human operators involved in the collection effort act correctly – he can still only get bad numbers for those four days of the week between Tuesday and Friday.
   (Note to reader: how can the possible implications – of people who hijack national databases – not be obvious about other issues also? I went on):
  To the final point now: if a database of collected county death tallies can be high jacked this way then ….. why not a database of collected county vote tallies? As in, what is going on right now during what (may) be a final orchestrated downfall of Trump’s Presidency?
   At the present time, the President is making the same (possibly) wrong assumptions that I did on the coronavirus. That it has to be human operators acting incorrectly – and then inserting the incorrect results of their behavior into the database. This could be a part of the problem but it may not be what could, ultimately, cost him the election. What if, like the coronavirus databases, these databases have also been high jacked so that they are, effectively, generating numbers rather than simply receiving them?
  Unless we can exclude this possibility, we must regard this as a national emergency. The President must order manual recounts in several states: Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico in the Southwest. Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the Rust Belt and in North Carolina and Georgia elsewhere. But this is what matters most: it must NOT make use of the internet and must not, under any circumstances, involve entering any results into any electronic databases. Everything will have to be done in hard copy like it would have been done 50 years ago.
  (Note to reader: I don’t maintain that the databases involved – in the elections – have definitely been hijacked. But it is now a proven fact that we have factions of people who are hijacking national databases for political purposes. So we can not know that they have definitely not been hijacked. That is why this is a national emergency. Again, why is it so difficult to get people to understand what is at stake with hijacked national databases being used for political purposes? I came to a conclusion):
   Thank you, Director, for allowing me to have your ear and I will make a final point. Some of the material you saw earlier talked about people refusing to see the obvious. Sometimes when something is staring you in the face you must simply accept it as something that is staring you in the face. Sometimes something means what it obviously means.
   When I ran the national coronavirus databases back to the State ones it lead to the same results – as it had to. And when I ran it back further to the originating County databases I should have hit my home run: the starting point for the corrupt database numbers and some specific names and people behind it. When this did not happen then remember what I just said: this is something that is staring you in the face so you must simply accept it as something that is staring you in the face. This is something that means what it obviously means.
  I also raised the point that there is nothing, substantially, different about high jacking a county database that tallies death counts – and one that tallies vote counts. Again, why is there a problem, with so many people, at accepting something that is staring you in the face as something that is simply staring you in the face? That something usually means what it obviously means?
   (I concluded with a plea):
  I hope I am not ending impolitely but please actually do something with this information. Most people do not have the capabilities to reach the important people that need to be reached with these types of issues. You do. Will you simply do so?”
   That concluded my email to the Director of the Washington Policy Center. They can be reached at The Washington Policy Center by email or at:
The Washington Policy Center
(206) 937-9691
3404 4th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134

  If you feel that what I have to say is important then you must act with me. I am not capable of a lone ranger save of American democracy. Unless others are willing to bring pressure to bear with then these issues will not get the type of coverage they need. Start calling the Policy Center, your local news outlets and anyone else you can think of. It is not like I have not raised important issues.


Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 11/07/2020 to 11/13/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 11/07/2020  562 vs. 1003 (John Hopkins) vs. 1126 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 11/08/2020  485 vs. 485 (John Hopkins) vs. 1208 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 11/09/2020  621 vs. 621 (John Hopkins) vs. 1062 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 11/10/2020  480 vs. 1399 (John Hopkins) vs. 480 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 11/11/2020  685 vs. 1456 (John Hopkins) vs. 685 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 11/12/2020  384 vs. 1170 (John Hopkins) vs. 1414 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 11/13/2020  700 vs. 1346 (John Hopkins) vs. 1471 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days ago, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 7480 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 7446 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 3917 
people during this 7 day period. 

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 11/14/2020 to 11/20/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 11/14/2020  827 vs. 1255 (John Hopkins) vs. 1142 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 11/15/2020  541 vs. 541 (John Hopkins) vs. 1356 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 11/16/2020  788 vs. 788 (John Hopkins) vs. 1216 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 11/17/2020  653 vs. 1523 (John Hopkins) vs. 653 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 18/11/2020  753 vs. 1955 (John Hopkins) vs. 753 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 11/19/2020  712 vs. 2011 (John Hopkins) vs. 1582 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 11/20/2020  623 vs. 1876 (John Hopkins) vs. 1825 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days ago, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 9949 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 8527 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 4897 
people during this 7 day period. 

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 11/21/2020 to 11/27/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 11/21/2020  919 vs. 1452 (John Hopkins) vs. 2036 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 11/22/2020  885 vs. 885 (John Hopkins) vs. 1853 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 11/23/2020  938 vs. 938 (John Hopkins) vs. 1471 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 11/24/2020  867 vs. 2098 (John Hopkins) vs. 867 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 11/25/2020 1052 vs. 2261 (John Hopkins) vs. 1052 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 11/26/2020  744 vs. 1221 (John Hopkins) vs. 1975 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 11/27/2020  598 vs. 1430 (John Hopkins) vs. 2248 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days ago, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 10285 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 11502 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 6444 
people during this 7 day period. 

   And we are finally caught up at exact cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 260,369
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 253,327
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 150,077


   This is it: THE BIG PUSH. Unfortunately, I had assumed the corona virus scare was to get rid of Trump. I honestly believed
that the hype would go down after the election. However, it apparently turns out that the idea was to get rid of Trump so that they could 
accelerate the virus scare even more without his resistance.

    You have absolutely insane levels of cases, the deaths are said to be back up sky high and they are using it to re-push lock-downs and (their own words) do a “global reset”. So, use your heads rather than your emotions. Can anyone question that this is the most politicized health crisis ever? That it has been used to suspend the Constitution and to constantly justify what would (normally) be outrageous behavior? Also, just believe their own words.

   Their own words are to make the virus a “transformative event” and, again, the meeting of the multi-billionaires and the “global reset”. Therefore, there are two main arguments you must always keep in mind about the virus. The first is that case numbers don’t matter (only deaths) as well as that it does matter, on policy questions, as to why people die when they do die. As we will continue to restate, the only people who are currently dying are people who are the victims of carelessness.

   It is either a case of careless elder care workers not following protocol. Or it is vulnerable people being careless and exposing themselves to the virus when there is no longer any necessity for them to do so. Once again, the magic words: CURBSIDE PICKUP. Thus, on policy it is an identical situation to this example: I am observing two sets of people acting carelessly and I use this result as a reason to keep punching you in the face. Why would that be good on policy?

   No matter what the case totals or death totals, it still makes no difference and changes nothing about the basic issues. At this point, 90% of all victims die from one of the two forms of carelessness mentioned above. Therefore, repeatedly smacking the rest of the population in the face will still never make for good policy. The second argument to always remember is that all the numbers are vastly inflated anyways.

   How have we gotten a RECORDED several-fold pickup in cases at the peak of this outbreak than existed at the last several peaks? It is simple: there are several times as many people being tested – but also the tests themselves are designed in a way that produces en-masse false positive readings. What happens is that they keep redoing the cycles of the test until any trace of the virus (whether active from a current infection or inactive from a past one) finally pops up. And when it takes several dozens of cycles to get that pop up effect? Then that test will always be tracing down a past infection trace of the virus – not a current one. If we had had this same amount of testing in the prior peaks, and used the same defective methods as we do now, we would have had the same case numbers. Thus, the case numbers are being presented to us in a vastly distorted context.

   And, as we have been showing for some time, the death numbers are also vastly inflated. Just to use the current set of numbers: the past Saturday had a 588 death count discrepancy in it between two government databases. The past Sunday had a death count discrepancy of 1350 deaths, last Monday had a 803 death count discrepancy and the last Tuesday had a death count discrepancy of 1673 deaths. So what are the real numbers? (For those who would like to do their own estimates, go to the Covid Tracking Project for the hospitalization stats. Next, just drop the last two numbers off of this statistic and that will give you your own accurate daily death estimates.)

   This short hand formula comes from using the April peak data where there were about 1800 deaths/60,000 hospitalizations. We are now around 3 times better at preventing deaths since then. Therefore, we will have around 600 deaths/60,000 hospitalizations. This equals one percent and means that you can just drop the last two digits of the hospital numbers for a reasonable estimate. There are currently 104,600 people hospitalized – so the daily death tally should run around 1,046 people per day within about a week’s time. This is also consistent with our more precisely done Decipher Spreadsheet.

   But back to the central issues: always keep these two arguments in mind. No matter what the numbers, smacking a bystander in the face is never a correct policy to deal with some one else’s carelessness. That is what a lock-down policy is. And, secondly, the numbers are vastly inflated as well. If you want to force an entire world into a “global reset” using inflated numbers (to overstate a problem) is certainly a well used way of manipulating people.  So much for a rather prolonged commentary: we will now just give you the correct numbers for the last week.

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 11/28/2020 to 12/04/2020) – and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 11/28/2020  1197 vs. 1181 (John Hopkins) vs. 1387 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 11/29/2020  791 vs. 791 (John Hopkins) vs. 1276 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 11/30/2020  1226 vs. 1226 (John Hopkins) vs. 1210 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 12/01/2020  862 vs. 2518 (John Hopkins) vs. 862 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 12/02/2020 1235 vs. 2821 (John Hopkins) vs. 1235 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 12/03/2020  783 vs. 2966 (John Hopkins) vs. 2439 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 12/04/2020  1165 vs. 2603 (John Hopkins) vs. 2751 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 14106 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 11160 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 7259 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,o37 deaths per day. It was 
no where near the 3,000 per day media hype. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 274,475
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 264,487
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 166,336