The biggest danger, arising from George Floyd’s horrible murder, is that the answers from it are going to be wrong at every level. At the present time, most people are set to come away with both the wrong take on what happened to Floyd. As well as all the wrong takeaways to be learned.


   From my own records, I will take out an incident report (IR), by a police officer, that is a totally doctored IR. The document was, ultimately, discredited and all charges were dismissed on constitutional grounds. The IR was doctored to cover for the unconstitutional behavior of the citing officer involved.

  The backstory needs to come first. An officer came to feel that an elderly couple was some type of a grey-haired version of Bonnie and Clyde. Presumably, they were dealing in ‘grey’ market automobiles. This is where you purchase a wrecked automobile (for chump change) and get it back out on the street – but do not go through the proper processes. However, he decided (and for his own reasons that only he knows for sure) not to treat it like a standard traffic stop. Instead, he went through his own procedures hoping to go after a ‘Big Bust’ – that simply wound up a bust!

   He started by running a data search on the owner of the car (the female member of the couple who was not driving) to try to determine the identity of the male driver. (No, he did not simply approach the male driver – and get started with the normal processes. Your guess is as good as anyone else’s as to why.) After determining who the woman’s husband was, he then ran his record, found an infraction and then finally got out of his car – but still did not immediately start his initial approach.

   Instead, assuming the male driver to (most likely) be her husband, he then put it to the test: he first remarked that “you have an expired driver’s license”, noticed the reaction of the driver and – only after, apparently, getting his confirmation – did he finally complete the approach, take the driver’s license from the male driver – and then go back to his squad car again without another word!

   Going forward some more now, there is modern science and how a police car’s scanner works. All of a person’s driver’s license and car info are immediately available in nanoseconds from a police car’s scanner. Thus, between his bizarre gambits and the scanner, he had already established the driver’s identity and any outstanding legal issues, all the car issues and should have had little more to do. Instead, after a long sit in his car before the initial approach, he next did another long sit in his car before finally emerging out of it – with yet another citation!

   And, if you are paying attention, it was the type of a citation that should already have been either confirmed to have occurred – or confirmed to have not occurred – in the first nanoseconds of the stop. Yet, after another 20 minutes of mining info from somewhere, he is presumed to have come up with another traffic write-up. Now down to what a doctored IR looks like.

   Well, we have three main aspects about the officer here:

      1) he went about the traffic stop in a way that violated the case law

      2) it involved utterly unexplainable and erratic behavior by the officer and

      3) he came up with contradictory results between what the system should have said about the traffic stop – and what he said about the traffic stop.

   Considering this, I guess it was a case of shame on me (yes, I was the one cited in this way above). I was still not aware, in advance, that his IR was going to be a complete fabrication. (Which it, ultimately, was).

   And here (in a short form version) are some of the ways in which it was. It ignored the initial long wait in his car before even stepping out of it (and what he was doing in there). It reversed the order of the events, that were documented, to remove the apparent contradictions. After all this, his IR only accounted for a time span of around 6 ½ minutes for what he did – with the other 20 minutes going into a limbo status. But here is the best demonstration on why a doctored IR is utterly worthless:

   What possible motive could the officer have had to make up both sides of a casual conversation (consisting strictly of idle banter and nothing of any real import or legal relevance to the matter) out of whole cloth? I have no idea why he should have had any reason to do that but that is precisely what happened. The IR has me engaging in some back and forth idle banter items with the officer – when absolutely no conversation occurred between us at all.


   What you have been given above is a type of an autopsy of a fabricated Incident Report. This was done to prep you for my analysis about the Floyd murder materials. I will go, systematically, through the materials and I will then ask relevant questions.

   1) Pigeon English was, allegedly, spoken by a store clerk where Floyd, allegedly, tried to pass a fake $20. All of this comes from a transcript released by authorities. It does not come from the clerk, there is no audio released to verify the voice, there is no full context. Parts of the alleged call seem ridiculous – he describes Floyd as 6 feet tall when he is much, much taller than that. The call, as given to us, refuses to identify his racial status until he is pressed into doing so.

   2) We are told he was intoxicated, not acting right, etc. Remember the autopsy about “possible intoxicants”? What does a real autopsy say – did he have alcohol or some impairment in his system or not? Yes or No?

   3) The fake bill still had wet ink and was obviously fake. Why hasn’t this bill been conclusively tied to Floyd? If it still had wet ink, then his wallet would have the same wet ink in it if the bill was really tied to him. His fingers and hands might have had the matching ink on them. Where is the physical evidence – that should be available – to tie him to anything?

   4) If he intended to resist arrest then why did he stay around waiting for the police? What about the two people supposedly in a car he was sitting on? Why haven’t they been a part of the story?

   5) The more obvious parts of a ‘construct’. A ‘construct’ is what it sounds like: someone reasons out “how should I construct a story so that it fits the facts – and provides me cover”. We are told he was passively resisting – didn’t they have to say that? He could not have been aggressively resisting arrest – or it would have made a scene.

   They had to maintain he was resisting in some way – or they could not justify their behavior. So, the story reads that he was passively resisting but in a low-profile way that would not make a scene. We are told he was already saying “I can’t breathe” before he was being manhandled. Of course, they are saying that – how else can you reduce your culpability? Except by entering some other wild card factor into the equation – regardless of whether it happened or not?

   6) And the most mysterious character of all: the hapless clerk who (we are told) did the call-in to the police. But it was called in as a quote “forgery in progress(?)” (and what in the holy heck over is that?). But it then morphed into counterfeiting, while still having accounts about Floyd looking like a Freddy the Forger type who was on the lam, which somehow ties into all of this … exactly how? The clerk was under duress to do like he was doing (he didn’t want to be involved), his story is erratic and contradictory, his behavior shows someone in some type of an uncomfortable situation for some reason, etc. Is there more to the story of the clerk? 

   And I could go on and on. But I put out the autopsy of a faked incident report for a reason. It is obvious the police involved (in Floyd’s death) could not put out an accurate IR – so a doctored one is inevitable. Thus, it is entirely possible for everything – and I mean everything – about the whole incident to be totally made up. I know: I have a totally made up report – right next to my right elbow as I am typing up this article.


   You can even learn something new from the latest stunner news report – except that it is not a stunner. It is just a confirmation of what I have said all along. I hope it is not overbearing but let me remind you of where I have been at all along. From my very first posting on 5/30/2020:

   “Urgent Warning (especially if you are an African American citizen): In spite of the enormous pressure to do so, please don’t jump to the immediate conclusion of “Racist, racist, racist” … and here is my most immediate take that needs to go out to the country.

I woke up this morning with what may be one of those “Aha!” moments. For now, I am only going off my general sense of what I saw (and some gut feelings) and it is this. There was no racism in the Floyd murder because it was a Murder Number One, by a corrupt cop, and done for reasons that had nothing to do with Floyd’s race. It is possible his murder victim just happened to be black but was murdered for other, and more deliberate, reasons.”

   It should be noted that this posting came out one day before a newspaper article mentioned them both working at the same night club. At the time I wrote this, I had no specific connection to nail it down to – but I was still certain of some connection having to be there. Once the (possible) connection of them both being connected to a night club came out, I did a quick post the next day (5/31/2020) that contained the following:

  “For reasons like these (and some others) I believe that some interactions between these two people – at a local club in the area – may be more likely a reason for Chauvin’s actions than their interactions in the police car. To help you deliberate on these matters, I now have the connecting link below about possible connections between Floyd and the Police officer. As well as a thorough breakdown of Chauvin’s actions towards Floyd:

Floyd and the Police Officer

   But you now have the confirmation about the alternative motive for Chauvin to murder George Floyd. I knew that such an alternative had to exist even before it was shown, first, to be possible (the article about a night club connection) and before, secondly, it was shown to be an active, hostile connection between the two that could easily account for an alternative motive (the attached news video clip below.)

Confirmed: Chauvin had an alternative motive to kill Floyd – that had nothing to do with their last interaction!

   But there is still much that is being missed even with the new revelations. The two standout matters that have bothered me about the Floyd murder are the personal nature of the murder (now confirmed) and the urgent nature that Chauvin placed on doing it (still not fully explained). As mentioned before: he must have known he was being live filmed in the commission of his murder – so why did he feel that he still needed to keep doing it?

   The current knowledge that Floyd was, in some way, in his face and being an annoyance – before the day in question – still does not account for that type of an urgency. It could aid in giving Chauvin a motive for the murder. But it cannot possibly explain his sense of urgency at getting it done, then and there, and no matter what. This type of thing only comes about when someone is some type of a danger to a person like Chauvin. Which, in turn, seems to be only accounted for if Chauvin is corrupt and had no choice but to commit the murder for some form of self-preservation.

   I will, therefore, make another set of declarations about the nature of Floyd’s murder:

      1) The narrative must stop invoking race, which had nothing to do with Floyd’s murder. It must also stop invoking excessive force or general policing issues which also had nothing to do with Floyd’s murder. It just needs to focus on a particular corrupt officer – and a deliberate murder conspiracy – as the motivation for his murder. (For those who have an interest in further research: I am leaning towards it being a Len Davis, aka, ‘Robocop’ (click Robocop) type of a murder – an incident of a corrupt police officer in New Orleans from many years ago).

    2) Chauvin needs to be prosecuted at the federal level so that he can be tried for capital murder – no other action can be appropriate at this time. (This was also done in regards to the above mentioned Len Davis). Chauvin, most likely, has orchestrated a first-degree murder conspiracy, for reasons of corruption and enlisted the help of others to act as co-conspirators.

     3) There are people, other than any of the police officers, who are also among these co-conspirators and

     4) Because this is a matter of official corruption, we must assume that this corruption could be far-reaching and involve a large network of people – unless it can be shown that it is otherwise.

   And here is where I will try to wrap up this point on getting the right take on the murder. First most, isn’t this supposed to be the most important thing – before we get off onto our political opportunism and our grievance culture? Think of his moments of Hell – even before Chauvin started executing his intentional murder on Floyd.

   Now that we know – that they knew each other – does not Floyd’s pleas of “He’s going to kill me!” take on new meaning? Even before Chauvin began killing him, Floyd may have had every reason to be afraid – and he might well have been aware of that! This, and so many other unresolved matters, is what disgusts me. What is wrong with us that we can’t wait until we have actually solved his murder – before we start deciding what it all means and start using it as our pet hobby horse for our pet issues?


   Everything that has happened for the last several weeks is all fake. Everyone involved in the matter – from Chauvin on the one hand, to the local DAs CYA activities on the next hand, to the opportunistic people using Floyd for politics on the other – are all being fake. The arrest was just Chauvin trying to use a faked up situation to execute his premeditated Murder One conspiracy – and done strictly for his own personal reasons. But, like everyone else, it is in his interest to let the racial narrative get played. And for an obvious reason – minus the current faked up scenario – he would probably be getting charged federally as a capital murder case.

   Then you have the DAs office. They know that Chauvin, most likely, was not the only crooked police officer in the entire Minneapolis/St. Paul area. That’s why he first obfuscated with “possible intoxicants” styled autopsy reports. But now, like the rest of his local law enforcement, he just wants an out on the best terms he can get – that will unearth as little of their own corruption as they can get unearthed. And to keep the rest of it swept under the rug as much as possible. Thus, he also is fine with the racial narrative being the one that gets played out – to keep a distraction going.

   Also, we now know that Floyd’s own family has not been completely forthcoming. First, we have a clip where it is shown that Chauvin had an alternative motive to kill Floyd – that had nothing to do with his arrest. We then get a grudging confirmation from his family that there could have been other things involved. But what about the several days before they were confronted by the new news reports? Wasn’t that a rather inappropriate omission – when you are still dealing with an active murder investigation of one of your own family members?

   You need to pay special attention to the news clip also – to not get confused. The clip did not say that it was revealed to Floyd’s family that there were other motives involved, they were caught unawares by this and then, and only then, made a statement about other possible motives being feasible. The clip states it otherwise: that they already had a previous opinion that other motives could have been involved. But they withheld this until they were confronted by the new news stories.

   Thus the obvious question: what could have been their only source for their information? The only source they could have had for their grudging confirmation (about something personal between the two people) is George Floyd himself – and before he died. Apparently, Floyd was telling them about his prior Chauvin connections – and Chauvin’s prior bad acts – before his murder. So what all was he telling them – and what all are his surviving relatives still not telling us?

   It is just more fakery. I will not take away from them that they are grieving severely – and with an absolute total right to be doing so. But, tragically, they also appear to be involved in politicking at the same time. They, also, are letting it all play out on strictly the racial narrative – and are playing along with it all being loaded up with all of the different political ramifications that can be bootstrapped onto it.



   But I must stand my ground here: getting the right take on what happened is still relevant at getting the right takeaways. The most obvious relevance is that the right take on what really happened – and why – debunks the entire racial narrative. For what about that most often asked question: would it have still happened to him if he were White? Of course it would have! If you have the bad fortune to run across a corrupt police officer who wants you dead to protect his criminal interests – then the race of any of the parties involved will never make any difference at all.

  At the end of the day, the Floyd murder is just a textbook case of someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By happenstance, he came across a corrupt police officer and caught him out in his corrupt doings. He then, predictably, wound up as a murder target of this same corrupt police officer. The matter then played its’ way out in the same way it would have played itself out – if any one of the rest of us had been in the same situation.

   This is why I feel that all of this radical schlock being peddled – by exploiting his death – is just as much a disgrace to his memory as the looting and rioting. For there is no evidence that Floyd himself believed in any of this radicalism – and there is considerable evidence that he did not. His own life is a classic case in point.

   Floyd’s life had a downward spiral that started while he started making bad choices with it. His downward spiral reversed when he reversed his bad decisions. And he, himself, always conceded this. There is nothing in either the life, or the expressed views of Floyd himself, that justifies exploiting his death to do a takedown of our system, to blame game White Society or to be anti-police. Therefore, his political exploitation – when he is no longer around to speak for himself – is just as much a disgrace to his memory as the looting and rioting.

   Everyone is trying to force fit racism into a story where it does not exist. And, while I know people don’t want to hear this right now, pushing for notions about systemic racism – and on grand scales – is a total cop out anyways. The worst failure by White Society is, actually, White liberals who won’t tell people things that they have to hear. There is a reason we have such a generation in crisis of young African American citizens. It is because they are taught to make all of the wrong personal choices, to do everything in their power to be their own worst enemy – and then to blame White racism for the catastrophic shape that their lives are in.

   And look at the police shootings – these are, in fact, a case in point for what I am saying. The shootings always happen in the worst areas of the country where people are acting out in their worst behavior. It is not a coincidence that you see so little of this happening in the suburbs and rural areas. African Americans live and work in these areas, also, but they have little to worry about from the police because there is so much less of the bad behavior going on that causes the police to even be involved.

   And even if you feel it is bad police work at work, this still highlights how the current African American generation is taught to act like their own worst enemies. When things like this happen, it will almost always be a case of systemic corruption in the local government – not some type of a systemic racism in all of America. For it is these local governments that are the only bodies – that have the constitutional authority – to supervise and regulate your local police.

   Further, these people are democratically elected by the people in those local areas – not by “White Society” or “The System”. So just what is this White man in the room supposed to be doing anyways? As long as the current generation of African Americans keeps electing people like, say, Lori “The Whack Job” Lightfoot to be their Chicago Mayor how I am supposed to still keep Chicago like the Garden of Eden – simply because I am the White Dude in the room? If you want to keep being your own worst enemy, then how am I supposed to still save you from yourself?

    Similarly, it is these local people of Minneapolis and St. Paul who have kept re-electing these same corrupt people into power in their local governments. Example: I have already detailed the mass obfuscation of the local DAs office before. But there is still more when you look deeper into Chauvin. Both Chauvin – and his behavior – date all the way back into both an Amy Klobuchar as well as the current DA. It is everyone – in that local power scene – that may have something to hide – not “White Society” or “the System”. Or that there is something at the national level that is somehow to blame.

   Another demonstration: Chauvin was a walking set of red flags for police misconduct going back through all his years on the force. But the local law enforcement establishment in his area is elected in a Yellow Dog Democrat electorate – and with the African American voters in the area giving it their 90-95% electoral support.

   So … please explain to me how a White Republican, like myself, who lives in a Federal Way in Washington State was supposed to have been able to stop Chauvin – and from hurting people in Minneapolis? And let’s go ahead and finish out this segment around Chauvin – but with the understanding that he was a Minneapolis/St. Paul problem – not a White Society one. Other examples about him: 95% of all officers never use lethal force in their entire careers. But Chauvin was involved in it on four different occasions. The average police officer draws less than two complaints per decade – or slightly less than one every five years. Chauvin drew complaints at nearly five times the normal rates for most other police officers. His work at a night club – that Floyd also worked at – is also another case in point.

   He used his badge to stay out of trouble there too. He pepper sprayed customers, was totally over the top and made the proprietor of the club extremely uncomfortable. He only got the job – and kept it – because of his police connections – and probably combined with his corrupt behavior as an officer.

   If you were attentive, you would know that the proprietor of the club was a liar when she originally stated that Floyd and Chauvin never met or knew each other. (Review the above hyperlink Floyd and the Police Officerif you need to refresh your memory). We now know this to be untrue – and that she almost certainly would have to have been aware of the trouble brewing between Floyd and Chauvin.

   But, like everything else that is relevant to why Floyd was really killed, this is left off the table. For, after all, why blame the actual killers of Floyd when you came blame White Society instead? White Society is such a better whipping boy.


   Getting back to an earlier point: pardon my noticeably short and blunt candor BUT the best way to get people to quit dumping on you is to stop re-electing them – not to blame White Society. Whether it is the St. Paul/Minneapolis area (where Chauvin happened) or any other area where a controversial police action occurred it is the same pattern. Every case happens in an area where it has been a One-Party State of Democrats – and for such an unbroken time that there is no longer any accountable involved.

   And in all cases of this, it is the African American voter who gives them their votes at a 90-95 rate of approval. So how in the blank am I supposed to do something about it? If somebody repeatedly does a dump in your face – and you repeatedly re-elect them – then just what is it that I am supposed to be doing to rescue you? These people are completely awful, but they are your completely awful people because you keep re-electing them!

   The pattern:

      1) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every controversial police action happens in a Hellhole Zip code. These are the areas where civil society has been allowed to go into a free fall.

      2) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every one of these areas’ leadership team is a Democrats Only One-Party State of longstanding.

      3) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every one of these leadership teams gets re-elected – every term – with the runaway support of African Americans and White Liberals.

   Therefore, I must end a lot of what I have said with a hard line. I want to be a “Republicans with a New Outreach” type of person but if I lose at my efforts to reconcile with all people, then so be it. Because there are simply times when pure BS is pure BS – and this is such a time. If you do not want people to keep dumping on you then quit re-electing them to do so. And stop blaming White society for your inability to pay attention to what you are doing in your local ballot box.

   And, since police officers can only be regulated by locally elected authorities, then what other option is there but to pay better attention to your local ballot box? Should I convert America into an immediate dictatorship by federalizing all the local police forces? Should I take away people’s voting rights altogether?

   Someone could easily stop the situation (with the total free fall of society in the inner cities) if they could take away people’s voting rights and act like a complete dictator. But, since that is not going to happen, you are – again – simply going to have to start taking ownership of your own conduct in your own local ballot boxes. Get control over your own life before you complain about others.

   Also, I do ask that you not deflect the matter back to me for being somehow ‘racist’ for my ending on a blunt note. If I am really some type of a Kool-Aid drinker for the White Police Officer – then why do I do wrongful conviction investigations? You cannot have a wrongful conviction without somebody doing something wrong – nor can you oppose one without being willing to admit that somebody can get something wrong.

   Nor am I a snooty, aloof country clubber who just cannot do a ‘get’ on the matter. I am blue collar all the way and you do not get the money to become otherwise if you are working pro bono – as I do on my wrongful conviction investigations. Further, there are many people (like myself) who believe in an enormous number of practical, pragmatic solutions to the blight that is so harming the African American citizen in the inner cities of today.

   But how is any of this supposed to happen – if the far majority of African Americans keep voting for the same people who have sent the inner cities into a free fall in the first place? You re-elect the same people in repeatedly – and someone else is supposed to have a “collective culpability” – if they cannot make it work out to a different outcome?

   As hard line a position as it may seem, I say again that there is a time to call things out for the way they are. I love and respect the African American citizen but there is no other alternative here. I have to call this whole thing out as complete and total garbage – and pardon my candor!





    A first matter: people are failing to grasp the clearly erratic behavior of all the law enforcement establishment in Minneapolis. I have mentioned the earlier, fake autopsy before but it gets more fake the more you look into it. The autopsy’s reference to “possible intoxicants” should immediately jump out at any reader. An actual autopsy can’t possibly refer to “possible intoxicants” because that is what an autopsy does – it tells you whether there were (or were not) such things in his system in the first place. The only reason for “possible intoxicants” to be mentioned is to try to buttress a witness account about “possible” intoxication. But the toxicology exam (part of every autopsy) should have removed any doubts on the matter – either the one way or the other.

   But a more disturbing second matter: I have finally gotten some info I was looking for: the actual words spoken during Floyd’s murder. And I confess: I could have had this earlier if I had listened to the video/audio tape for myself – but I simply could not do so. I watched the video but kept the audio off: it is simply too sickening.

  And the audio part shows more of what I have said. The audio shows that there was something deeply personal going on between Chauvin and Floyd; something that went way beyond whatever was going on at the last particular incident. This continues to be a needed part of the investigation: it could show the matter to be much deeper (and to involve more people) than just Chauvin and his immediate crew.

  It also continues to remain un-investigated for the reasons I have talked about earlier. We have a crime that is done so sadistically that you know something more is involved than just a random encounter. But this is also a lot like other high stress situations – it is difficult to get anyone to think more deeply and to see the obviousness of some things. We are still stuck with what people have simply assumed since early in the matter.


   Please go to the Current News! page and see the 6/07/2020 post. Matters like this are not the only things being overlooked under the inflamed feelings that currently prevail.





   I know that some of my material may be premature. Some of it will be non-controversial while some of it will call on people to think outside of their comfort zone. Which, at the present time, is not something that most people want to be doing. Therefore, I will limit myself to two general issues. And then there will be a third issue where I will simply ask some questions – and they are only questions – to leave to each person’s own consideration.

   ISSUE ONE: Always listen to people who are just encouraging you to ask more questions. As I have stated before, I hope there are African American citizens following my Floyd articles – and all its updates. If not, then I plead with anyone – who is reading it – to encourage African American citizens to start following it. That is the audience that I am addressing with this first issue.

   Let us say that you are an African American and are in an awfully bad state of mind right now. I am your conservative leaning White Male with an (R) behind my name. Nevertheless, I am merely asking everyone to be willing to ask more questions. Thus, there is not a whole lot of reason for us to be at odds with each other.

   And I do feel that this is needed right now. If the Chauvin case just follows the standard racial narrative (about racism and excessive use of force) then he could wind up with less than 15 years of imprisonment. Whereas, if the suspicion that I have is correct, and it can be proven in court, he could – conceivably – get the death penalty. I have discussed my suspicions before and there will be a follow-up video coming out later. But , for now, there is much more involved than you are being told – and much more involvement by others. (All of which will be swept under the rug if it all about racist, racist, racist – rather than what actually happened).

   At the end of the day: it is still just a case in point about this first issue – the need to ask more questions. Though my thoughts on the matter may diverge from the main way of thinking (at least for now), I am still only recommending that people should ask more questions. Hopefully, there is not much that is controversial about that point.

   ISSUE TWO: Always listen to people who are just seeking pragmatic solutions – that will lessen the number of bad things that will happen. Does this necessarily lead to a THE ANSWER? Probably not, but it could still lead to less bad things happening.

   Now, I do not have the space to do an exhaustive every-possible-answer presentation. So, simply to demonstrate that pragmatic solutions are possible, here are two items that are simple and basic. They could be ways to gradually change the system for greater transparency and accountability.

   1) Whenever an officer writes someone a citation or does an arrest, he must notify the citizen involved that a) he will write up a full incident report b) the incident report will be available for his review with 48 hours and that c) he is strongly encouraged to either verify – or to contest –  what is in this report at the soonest possible moment.

   Now, obviously, this does nothing about a lethal incident! But what if Chauvin had been required to show greater transparency and accountability since Day One of being a police officer? Is it at least possible that he either:

          a) would have learned not to become like the Derek Chauvin that killed a man later or

          b) he might have gotten removed (as a police officer) earlier on (before he killed someone)?

   Granted, this is a minor reform. It probably will be the most help at contesting, say, traffic citations. I know – I was in an instance where I found out (several months later) that a totally bogus incident report had been written up by my citing officer. And, of course, this was only after I asserted my legal right to see a copy of it.

   The more minor point is that knowing this immediately might have been helpful. But the more major point: what if all officers are on notice that they will be required to make it happen that way? Then maybe there would be a lot less bogusness going around in some of their write ups in the first place.

   Again, this is a basic but minor change up. Still, don’t most officers first start to go wrong on the things that are basic and minor? The earlier – and more thoroughly – you get accountability going on in an officer’s career the better for everyone. But let’s move onto something considerably less minor.

   2) The formal civilian complaint. Again, the answer is to get the average person involved rather than trusting beaucrecies to handle our disputes. There already exists a US Mediation Service – and they do free mediation between victims of crime and the perpetrators who have been incarcerated for these crimes. If they are capable of doing this, then why not mediation between average people and a police officer? How can the one thing be more difficult than the other?

   I can’t do a long write-up but there is a quick reason to consider it as the way forward. Get people better educated about what is really going on. “Knowledge casts out fear” said the Apostle Paul – and I agree with that. Police officers can not possibly know what is going on inside the heads of all the people they have to deal with. And most people are ignorant of what is going on inside the officer’s head. Thus, mediation – between the officer and the complainant – would force this ignorance to come to an end.

   3) And then the worst case scenario: how do you get rid of a police officer and/or discipline one? It has always involved “the system” of government officials controlling the process in some way or another. But why not try, again, a more direct process – in all events where someone is killed or seriously injured? That is, an enhanced type of grand jury is convened (one that is composed of the residents in the area where the matter happened). Then you have them decide the fate of the officer?

   All the matters that would normally go into a shooting review board (or other forms of internal hearings done by “the system” of government types) would now be devolved. It would all be aired before a citizens group empaneled as a grand jury instead. And it would be an enhanced grand jury because of its enhanced authority.

   They would have the power to do an utter exoneration of the officer. No charges, no disciplinary measures, nothing. They could direct a firing or lesser punishment of the officer in lieu of criminal charges. Or they could direct that criminal charges be brought forward.

   Clearly, this is another type of a proposal that could use a long and detailed write-up that this article does not have the space for. Nevertheless, I will give a brief statement on why this has to be the way forward that totally re-writes “the system” as it applies to police accountability. My statement centers, again, around citizen education.

   One thing that would, unquestionably, happen is that the average citizen would become more involved in the process. Thus, hopefully, becoming better educated about the process. And, thus, become less hostile towards the process – and more accepting of its results.

   For I would imagine there would be less contentiousness, by the average citizen, about the results of the process – if the results came about by means of the average citizens themselves. Again, this would not change things in the most extreme instances – like how the trial would be conducted if charges are filed. But the point here is like the first point: to stop the extreme instances from happening in the first place.

   Chauvin had a long list of complaints against him that might, under a different type of system, have gotten him drummed out earlier. Or, again, the extra accountability – and directly to the people themselves – might stop the Chauvins from becoming like Chauvin in the first place.

   Now, I do not claim there is such a thing as a THE ANSWER – because there is not. But anything that causes a greater – and earlier – level of accountability (and more directly back to the citizenry themselves) will still improve the officer/civilian relationship. And (hopefully) mold a better group of officers who will be less likely to become like a Chauvin in the first place.  

   ISSUE THREE: Finally, I do hope you will always be willing to listen to a dissenting voice. I do want answers – but not false accusations and a dysfunctional society. I say this because nothing will totally get rid of every Chauvin type, every time, so that nothing bad will ever happen. And, though not intended, that is – essentially – what is being demanded here.

   These types of expectations are usually something that is implicit – no one is directly making such a demand. But, all too often, people simply do not think things through thoroughly enough – and wind up making such a demand without even realizing it. I will try to draw this matter out with some basic questions.


   1) I am White and you are Black – how much more control does that give me over other people’s free will decisions?

   2) Is there a probability curve involved in a country with 330 million people living in it, i.e., that there will always a significant number of evil people around? How much control does my white skin give me at bending this probability curve? With these two starting questions in mind, consider some others:

   3) Is it physically possible, for a White man, to create a world that does not have a single evil human being in it? Is it physically possible for any man to do this?

   4) Is it physically possible, for a White man, to create a world that does not have a single Derek Chauvin in it – with his particular type of evil? Is it physically possible for any man to do this?

   5) ASSUME that I am no more able to create a Chauvin-less world than any other person.  Then why am I more collectively (or personally) culpable for his acts than any other person? Lastly,

   6) ASSUMING that it is not possible to create a world with no evil people (or Derek Chauvins) in it: then which party do you feel is the most to blame for this – the White man, the Black man or Adam and Eve?


   1) Is it possible to create a world with less evil people in it?

   2) Is it possible to create a world with less Derek Chauvins in it?

   3) ASSUME several things about statistics (for the moment):

      a) as a percentage of the whole, people like Chauvin are exceedingly rare.

      b) as a percentage of the whole, the number of lethal encounters between the police and unarmed African Americans is exceedingly rare. That is, there are around one dozen per year – but in a country that has multi-millions of incidents where the police may be in contact, in some way, with a person of color.

      c) That both these percentages of the whole, as well as the actual numbers, are better this year than they were the last year, which was better than the year before that, which was better than the year before etc. and

      d) That this trajectory appears to be continuing: that the next year should be better than this one, the year after that should be better than the year before it etc.

   If true, then why shouldn’t the takeaway be that we should keep doing exactly what we are doing – but to simply see if we can do it faster?


   1) Is it a correct reaction to keep re-indicting all African American people for, say, being somehow dangerous – every time there is some type of a violence in some of America’s more distressed communities?

   2) Is it a correct reaction to keep re-indicting all white people for some type of a collective culpability – whenever any other white person does an evil act?

   3) Is there any reason why both reactions are not just as inappropriate as the other?

   4) Is it POSSIBLE that we are setting ourselves up for failure? A hypothetical: There exists one, and only one, person like Derek Chauvin in the entire world. At some one point in time, he then acts out with his evil acts. But under today’s rules, we must then re-indict all White society for his evil act – and because we have some time of a collective culpability for everything that he does.

   Does this mean that we must set up a world where there is not a single Derek Chauvin? Or that, if not, then all White society must simply accept being repeatedly re-indicted for other people’s evil acts? And that this simply needs to be accepted as a part of a new normal?

  5) Even if we were to, willingly, accept this burden, would we be doing a helpful act anyway? Or is it POSSIBLE that there is such a thing as a dysfunctional relationship – where neither person is ultimately helped by it? And, finally,

  6) Is it POSSIBLE that such a situation would, effectively, set up an all the way murderer – like Derek Chauvin – with the power to swing a veto over the rest of society? As to whether we should be allowed to get along with each other or not? If so, should there be a concern about just how dysfunctional such a situation would really be?


   At the end of the day you must decide if a valid point has been made – and as to what that valid point is. But just consider: If someone were to walk into any room and say, “Hi, my name is Derek Chauvin and I am an all the way murderer. Would you like me to swing a veto over whether you should ever be happy and get along?” wouldn’t most people say “Hell, no”?

  But isn’t that what we are, effectively, doing when we set ourselves up for failure with unreasonable demands and expectations? Of course, every murder is hideous. And the George Floyd murder has got to be one of the most hideous ones that I have ever seen. But how do we help ourselves out by demanding that bystanders must also be held morally accountable for it?

   Is it POSSIBLE, that like every other issue, there has to be a two way street? We must figure out better ways for people to act but, maybe, there also need to be better ways for people to react?  Especially since we will never live in a world where the number of Derek Chauvins is going to be a complete zippo? I leave you to God’s grace and your own considerations.





  The latest update (on why I am right that we need to ask a lot more questions):

   1) Fake autopsies: Fortunately, Floyd’s family got their own expert involved. They then demonstrated that the DAs office put out an erroneous autopsy. But what is most suspicious is the DAs initial response to the crime.

   He, purportedly, had info that could be exculpatory for Chauvin. But how could he have had it – at that time? Even the fake autopsy had still not been done yet when he was claiming this. One possibility? He knew that the autopsy would help the Officers – before it was even done – because he was a part of an effort to fabricate one.

  2) Could this even be an entirely fake scenario altogether? You can be sure that there was no Rodney King style of resisting arrest – even if for no other reason than that Floyd was an even larger and stronger person than King. So where was the big melee if Floyd was doing something like this – it seems to be an awfully tame scenario for this story line to be true.

   Also, the more I read about Floyd’s Christian ministry work in the Third Ward in Houston, the less sense the whole thing makes. The scenario of him drunk, on drugs and passing off fake bills is totally atypical of his recent life for around the last ten years. Is this even one of the possible prior connections between Floyd and Chauvin that I have been checking into?

   Floyd’s typical manner, in his more recent years, was to crusade against things in Minneapolis that were corrupt and/or broken. Then, in the other corner of the ring, are corrupt people wanting things to remain corrupt and broken. The gong sounds, when things come to a head for some reason, and the bout begins – but in a way that was set up to get Floyd out of the way.

  How do we know – whether this is true or not – until we start checking things out? Was he too much in-the-know due to his common work at a night club that Chauvin also worked at? Was he too much in-the-way because of his recent passion to be a reformer – in a corrupt town that may not have wanted it? Is a combination of the two? Something else altogether?

   We must start asking questions because the one thing that I am 100% certain of is that the current scenario (strictly a racial narrative around the last isolated set of events surrounding his death) is a total fake. I do not buy into any of it. Unless we starting asking more questions, we could wind up with wholesale corruption (and other possible issues) all getting swept under the rug because of a too narrow look at only one possible aspect of what happened. And, per my last update, from us getting too caught up in the current uproar to see other possible issues and ask other possible questions.





   Have you been keeping track of my updates on the Floyd murder? If so, you are aware that I am pursuing a, possibly, neglected aspect of his murder. But why am I doing this: my constantly going against the grain of current thinking?

   I have both strong and deeply personal reasons for why I am doing this. And it ties back to an event that happened 25 years ago – where people were also very scared, enraged and, thus, were not willing to ask enough questions. To bring you up to speed about this:

   I am one of the very few people in this country who qualifies as an expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing. (For documentation on this click here: See it for yourself ) And for a tragic reason: it has nothing to do with my being such a great researcher. It instead comes from virtually everyone else having totally shut their brains down. To stop being analytical and to keep asking more questions. For example, no one working for the FBI qualifies as an expert on the bombing.

   Why? Because they just went along with the uproar, grabbed the first person who looked good for it and then did an utterly incompetent investigation. It was done straight out of a TV Cop show style: “We already know who did it, now we just have to prove it”! That is an actual quote from one of their ‘scientists’ connected to the investigation.

   They then continued with their gross incompetence: they shaped the crime to fit the suspect, worked out what they needed their witnesses to say and then molded them properly until they said it, etc. In short, the average FBI agent has less of an idea of what really happened that an average citizen who might have been willing to hear both sides on the matter. For every FBI agent only investigated one side of the matter – and with a total set of blinders on all throughout.

   There are also no experts on the tragic bombing among the journalists or people in the “clattering” classes. It is because they felt no need for competent, objective journalism. They also liked just going along with the uproar.

   They had their pet bigotries that anyone who was a little bit bizarre in their politics (by their standards) was also the last of the big-time baby bombers just waiting to go off. Obviously, then, since McVeigh was way out there in politics – and he was accused of being the last of the big-time baby bombers – then what more needed to be said? “We already know who did it, now we just have to prove it.”

   And the least competent observers of the case are the jurors who heard all the (non) evidence. The Justice Department was given cart blanche to bring the public uproar (with all its inflamed emotions) into the court room – in lieu of having actual evidence. And the jurors were swept full bore into the uproar and gave them their conviction – in lieu of having actual evidence.

  So … what is my claim to fame on these matters? It is called “evidence whispering” – you meticulously vet through every piece of evidence in an utterly anti-emotional, strictly analytical manner. And with no incoming point of view on guilt or innocence. Something, that to the best of my knowledge, has never been done by any other person. Thus, my reasons for claiming that I am one of very few people who is an actual expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing.

   But what did I come up with then of any real note? How did my more analytical approach work in real practice? Versus, say, just riding the uproar? Here were my three main takeaways that I came up with through my approach:

   1) Nothing the government did, through its’ inept and slipshod investigation, was going to make us any safer from the same people who did the bombing

   2) The way they (the feds) could run amok would just make us less safe from them in the future – due to their willingness to abuse their powers and

   3) that, despite this, it was still far from certain that we had even executed the right person for the right crime

   I wrote all these conclusions down in a published book almost 20 years ago. Since then here is what has emerged per each of the points listed above:

   1) Long after I wrote this down, someone infiltrated a white supremacist group in Oklahoma. He rose all the way up to the No. 3 position in the group. And discovered an awfully bad secret that is reserved, apparently, only for the people in the No. 1 and No. 2 slots in these groups. Here is what he found out and how he did so:

   He and the No 1 and No. 2 people were all together. The other two told him to wait behind while they conferred with each other. Naturally, being an undercover informant, he eavesdropped on their conversation.

   And …. they talked about doing another attack on a Federal office building – specifically the Ernie Cable building. This was one of the buildings that McVeigh was sent out to look at and, apparently, they seemed to be the recipients of that information. Thus, per point 1 above, how can we really be that sure we are safe from a hit number two – and, apparently, from some people who appear to have a connection to hit number one?

   2) Per point two above: what kind of lessons did the FBI learn from being allowed to cut corners and to do slipshod investigative work? The lessons they learned do not seem to be particularly good ones. For I will now tell you a tale of two Inspector General reports.

   One report showed a virtual run of corruption in the FBI practices about a FISA warrant process – where you can eavesdrop on American citizens. All the rules were broken, none were followed, it was a complete mess. And what was a very recent, second Inspector General report about? It was about the FBI’s response to the first report – and how the FBI has (effectively) told them to go straight to Hell with all their suggested reforms!

   3) Per point three above – after all this: did we even hang the right people for the right crimes? Shortly before McVeigh was executed the FBI even became aware of a fifth rate blunder in their investigation – and frantically sought to get an interview with him. Too late; he turned them down and was executed shortly afterwards.

   Now, sometime after his execution, the FBI came across what were supposed to be his bomb making materials. One place for them came from an anonymous phone call (that could not have come from McVeigh or any of his known associates) that detailed exactly where to find some of these materials inside the walls of someone’s house. And this person did not claim to have ESP powers, has never been run down for who he is and remains a mystery.

   The second place where the alleged bomb making materials showed up was in a skinhead safehouse in Cleveland, Ohio. At least that is what the lawsuit was about. But, like the items above, there was no transparency by the Government on these matters at that time – and there has been no meaningful follow-up to these matters since then. For, after all, why do you still need to ask more questions when “We already know who did it?” or, in the Floyd case, where everyone already presumes to know the why of what they did.

   But we do not. We do know the what of what has happened. And it is that a Derek Chauvin is an all the way murderer. And that the Hennepin County DAs office is doing an all the way obfuscation. But police officers have done murders before – and for other than racial reasons.

   And, similarly, you could say that the DAs office is doing a Blue Shield/Racism thing. Or, it could just be a Crook Shield/Corruption thing where everyone feels the need to do a CYA. Both are possible – and how are we supposed to know which one it is until it is exhaustively investigated?

   And there are important ramifications involved regarding which of the two most likely motives it is. So, we do need to know which of the two most likely answers is correct. But we do not know, and nobody appears to be interested in checking it out!

   Thus, after 25 years, I find myself in another come-full-circle moment. Why do we, after every particularly horrible event, have to all act like well-trained circus dogs – and each start jumping through our usual hoops that we feel the most comfortable with? Why we do always have to our minds totally made up in the first 15 minutes after the bomb blast, in the one case, or in the first 15 minutes after the seeing of a hideous video in the other case? Why can’t we ever just do it like the law says – and keep asking more questions until we have had the chance to run down all the necessary information (to get all the necessary answers)? All I am saying is that we are still not there yet on this matter and we still need to keep asking more questions.







RESPONSE TO QUESTION ONE: In yesterday’s posting, I documented how Chauvin went into a well-organized and committed plan to do a Murder One on Floyd. I also explained why it is unlikely he would do this just off their dealings for that one last incident they were involved in together. In the materials that follow, by way of a hyperlink, there are now reasons to believe that Chauvin and Floyd may have had previous connections. Also, that the Officers’ behavior was even more extreme than previously thought.

   In a following hyperlink, it is stated that Floyd was successfully handcuffed and was sitting in the car. Then, for some reason, Chauvin pulls him out of the car (while handcuffed) puts him into position on the ground and then begins an organized Murder One operation. But which thing is really the more statistically likely to switch the officer into his actions at such a point in time: Floyd said some kind of general badmouthing like “I know you to be a Pig M’er F’er” – and thus Chauvin got motivated to go into a premeditated murder mode? Or would such a switch into such actions by Chauvin be more likely if Floyd had said (or done) something (at some time either during their last encounter or earlier) that ran afoul of him due to him being some type of a crooked cop?

   For reasons like these (and some others) I believe that some interactions between these two people – at a local club in the area – may be more likely a reason for Chauvin’s actions than their interactions in the police car. To help you deliberate on these matters, I now have the connecting link below about possible connections between Floyd and the Police officer. As well as a thorough breakdown of Chauvin’s actions towards Floyd:

Floyd and the Police Officer

RESPONSE TO QUESTION TWO: As to the level where Klobuchar used to be at (the county prosecutor) – and where there is a new One-Party State of Democrats now operating – is there corruption there also? It is one possible explanation for their efforts to try to tag just one of the officers as the scapegoat for the whole thing – and to not prosecute all of them. The actions of all the officers present was so deliberately and fully coordinated with Chauvin that there is no logical or legal reason not to prosecute them all equally. So why won’t they?

   Corruption can be a satisfactory explanation. If everyone is corrupt, and at all levels, then there is no way for one part of such a grouping to go after some other part – because they all have the same potential exposure. Everyone could close ranks behind using just one of their own to get sacrificed – to get the pressure off everyone else – but that would be about it.

   As to Klobuchar herself, there is now a documented connection between her and Minneapolis’ past problems in these matters. I have a link, to follow this, where she defends herself – but very lamely. She blames the grand jury system for not getting enough accountability for police officers that misbehave. And, thus, shifts any responsibility for her past actions on to them. Below is the link:

Klobuchar and the Police Officer


  Sorry for this final link but we have to see this with our own eyes. The way that some people will exploit a situation – and for what possible purpose??? Click on the link below (if you dare).

What a way to disgrace George Floyd’s memory!





   Urgent Warning (especially if you are an African American citizen): In spite of the enormous pressure to do so, please don’t jump to the immediate conclusion of “Racist, racist, racist”. But I say this for a reason you may not find that objectionable; so I hope you will still read this full article and the continued updates I intend to make to it.

   Here is my most immediate take that needs to go out to the country. I woke up this morning with what may be one of those “Aha!” moments. For now, I am only going off of my general sense of what I saw (and some gut feelings) and it is this. There was no racism in the Floyd murder because it was a Murder Number One, by a corrupt cop, and done for reasons that had nothing to do with his race. It is possible his murder victim just happened to be black but was murdered for other, and more deliberate, reasons.

   As noted, I will be doing updates in the upcoming days as I have a chance to analyze it more fully. Below is what my immediate thoughts are:

   1) The behavior of the police officers was so bizarre. They obviously had a crowd of  people pleading with them – that they deliberately ignored. I can only go on general impressions but I had the feeling it was like a desperate hope that they would just go away (or there would be less ruckus) if they would just keep ignoring them.

   Based on past experiences and analysis, however, this is a very unusual state of mind for a law enforcement officer to have – if he is operating in good faith and is just doing his job. Thus, again based on past experiences and analysis, I was struck with an immediate feeling that we were missing something as to why. Were they acting like guilty people because they were guilty people – and were perfectly aware of the wrongfulness of what they were doing?

   2) The more I have thought about it, the more I have come to believe that their actions were very intentional – and that they were very committed to doing what they were doing. Because, referring to 1) above, why not simply stop what they were doing when it was starting to become a very brazen act? Thus, it seemed to show them being extremely committed to doing the act that they were doing. But why? Again, this obviously doesn’t tell us the exact “Why” of the matter.

   3) Maybe their is more of a “why” to be gotten out of something unnoticed: I don’t think any one has paid any attention to something else odd on this matter. If the officer had positioned his victim just a little bit further behind his vehicle he might have committed the murder without ever being noticed. This is what leads me towards Murder One as my possible belief. Maybe he just screwed up – he didn’t quite get things positioned in the way that he intended.

  4) The way all of the officers continued to do virtually no reaction no matter what was going on around them. There is a very fundamental reason that this is chronically atypical – even in cases where officers might be crossing a line. In virtually every one of these cases, even when the officer gets it wrong, there is still some type of a provoking act. And which is then followed by behavior showing the effects of adrenelin and their having been provoked.

   Not in this case. The behavior of the officers was so cold stoned stoical and cool-as-a-cucumber – even while continuing to do such an act with no provocation – that it throws the whole matter into a just-doesnt-feel-right category by me. But, again, with all of the ruckus starting up, why be that committed to doing the murder at that time and place?

   5) Is the answer to 4) that they are crooked cops with something to hide – or that they did not want obstructed in some way? And was Chauvin thinking (at least at the moment he maneuvered Floyd into position) that this might be an opportune moment to commit a murder – and masquerade it as something else?

  These are my immediate observations on the actual murder. If something more on this comes in I will add more. But it is also important to go to the underlying reasons and larger issues involved. And on this matter, I already feel a good reason to be certain of myself. And that it is a tale of increasing corruption (between two cities) with one person as a central figure in both cases – Senator Amy Klobuchar.

  The two cities I am referring to are Washington, D.C and Minneapolis/St. Paul. In our home page message, I have talked at length about what happens when you make a city a One Party State of the Democrats. This is why Minneapolis and St. Paul have become an increasingly corrupt city. The more that you look into Klobuchar as a former DA the more this will become apparent.

   She also has a personal connection to the murdering police officer and I have already written a piece about other corrupt matters centering around her. And yet, she ran as a Presidential candidate. She now has her hat strongly in the ring to be the VP choice for Joe Biden. That is why I am writing this as an urgent article. Granted, at least at the moment, it is hard to think about anything except the way that Floyd was murdered,  but we must still also think of other issues. The immediate one being that the future career of Ms. Klobuchar goes precisely no where. She must never be the President, the Vice President or even do a continuing term as a U.S. Senator any longer.

   As I stated earlier, I will keep updating this article as I have a chance to do further analysis. After each update, I will specify that it is ready in the Special Bulletin note on the Home Page. And as to the second city and its’ increasing corruption: Washngton, D.C.? This is amply covered by the material I already have on Klobuchar. So, for now, just keep tuning in.

Culture Watch IV


   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 Munchhausen-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!)

   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. Under-aged children are now the main front for being proselytized 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 under-aged 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 pedophilia 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 under-aged 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.

   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. Now, to allude back to the 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 under-aged 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 our children’s sex acts. 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.

   Also, the State of Washington (just as one example) attempted to make gender identity education mandatory for all students – and 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.

   But what I propose is a simple 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 your children’s sex acts – 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 starting to become directly involved in sensitive sexual materials and themes – rather than merely being exposed to them.

   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. And for these type of acts I will also list two specific cases:

      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 the aggressive sexualizing of them. That is, child sexual abuse ran live on television – and hosted by a former President’s (supposedly) wholesome daughter.

      Case 2) Here I will call out a TV program that was called the “Council of Dads”.  

   So far, I have been in something of a nebulous legal 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 virtually new norm in our society right now.

   The cultural elitist types have even made the chronically under-aged 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 a recent new TV show “Council of Dads” did take it to the next (even prosecutable) level – and while you watched it from your living rooms.

   The incident involved a scene where the producers of the show had a 4-year child acting out the part of a gender confused cross dresser. And there is only one way that you could have watched a 4-year-old (acting out as a 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 you as their audience.

   In short, you 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 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 fact that some private person, in his own private life, may have some un-Biblical living is something that 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 dislike for them as a person.

   The other case (where someone is trying to orchestrate acts of sexual behavior on to all of 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 getting into 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. As noted above, we physically watched an ongoing, prosecutable act of child abuse being done on our television screens while letting it just fly over our heads.

   And what of our own being proselytized by our television sets? In all cases, in every new show for this TV season, they all revolve around homosexuality. 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!

   The proselytizing of chronically under-aged minors. The whole utter perversion where we leave chronically under-aged minors to fend for themselves in endeavors that are not even remotely age appropriate (almost analogous to letting them pilot an airplane – some of it is so reckless). 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.

‘Science’ vs. Thinking – The Introduction


   So, how are we all doing one Great Depression, one 6 trillion-dollar giveaway (and still higher deaths) later? After we have let ‘Science’ and the medical professionals run the whole show for us – on the virus? In fact, my worst problem (with covering the ‘science’ crowd) is sticking to just 5 ways to describe their errors.

   Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Here is the shorthand version of this article. Regarding, that is, ‘science’ vs. how, say, just thinking logically might have been a better alternative:

   Error #1) There are 3,142 government agencies – all of which could have stopped the epidemic dead in its’ tracks. But ‘Science’ overlooked all of them – and continues to do so now.

   Error #2) It is possible to do an effective isolation campaign – and with virtually no economic damage. But ‘science’ has dismally failed to deliver it for us.

   Error #3) It is possible to keep every business in the entire United States open and to INCREASE the safety from the virus. But ‘Science’ adamantly disagrees with me on that.

   Error #4) ‘Science’ has protected hundreds of millions of people who have no need for it. And cannot figure out why the people who do need it keep dying.

   Error #5) I could go on excessively so I will do just one more. Real science has a ton of practical measures that we can use on the virus in the right here and right now. But ‘Science’ is obstructing every one of them.




   My main point here is that every one of the 3, 142 counties in America has its own crack health departments. But how many people are familiar with the following names: Donald Trump, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, Gavin Newsom vs., say, the names of any of the 3,142 heads of the County Health Departments.

   And, while I may hate to bruise egos, it is the people you see on TV: Cuomo, Inslee, Newsom, ‘Witless’ Whitmer (Governor of Michigan) and et al who are the LEAST consequential in the fight. It is actually the real scientists (at the front lines) who are left under-resourced and relegated to the sidelines – but are the real essential people.

   So, the first truly scientific thing to do is to get more resources to the front-line scientists. And get more of their front-line involvement at the center of the fight. We need to have way more direct, CDC to County Official connections. And, while it is not necessarily the only solution, in other writings I have noted that there are 687 federal courthouses spread across the country among the 3,142 counties. Maybe, with a little investment and retrofitting, you could wind up with 687 staging areas (in better contact) with the counties – where most of the action is at.

   Just one dreadful example: The many thousands of people who have all died in senior care facilities. And all because the senior care industry has been a complete basket case since time immemorial. There have never been enough resources going into the senior care industry to even begin protecting them from infectious diseases.

   And even if we started properly resourcing them, the money would just go to waste if we are minus the County level health departments doing their necessary inspections. Just this one item, alone, would have been able to save countless thousands of lives.

   Or look for a moment at other things you can’t expect someone on the national ‘science’ scene to pick up on. There have been, for example, countless times – over and over – where we could have broke the virus had we acted stronger at a more local level. And also acted there on a much sooner basis.

   There are many local level things left undone. The most tragic is the complete neglect of what is called surveillance testing. Virtually every virus could be broken, early, if every County Health Department was resourced to do regular and widespread surveillance testing. This would tell us the best information on when and where to strike in using our State and National resources.

   I will demonstrate that last statement, and the deep gravity involved, by walking you through the epidemic timeline. The main brunt started out in my state, Washington State. And in the County where I live in – King County. Now, had the crisis ACTUALLY revolved around science and being data-driven (by County-led regular and wide spread surveillance testing) what would we have known and how soon would we have known it?

   We would have soon discovered that just some very small measures would have solved the crux of the matter – with little more needed to stop the loss of lives. I still have no problems with businesses being required to do a Safe-but-Open plan and working with the citizenry to ramp up aggressive self-protection. But just by securing the elderly and infirm even a badly infected hot spot area would have had few fatalities. All of which would have been known (and from early on) had the effort been science and data driven – and worked by inspectors and scientists at the local levels.

   So … enough of if-this and that. What evolved next is that we wound up with 10 counties doing half of all the emissions for the whole country. (And do any of you know the names of any of the ten County Health Commissioners of these 10 counties? Or of any significant role they played at helping to resolve the crisis? Neither do I.) Then it evolved to where we are at now: we still have 80% of all cases occurring in 12 major metropolitan areas.

   But … still no locally based solutions from ‘science’ and the medical professionals. So, I will summarize for now as I conclude this point: we still can (and should) use local strategies to fight the virus. It is possible to do a strategic quarantine of an area (to stop it from creating other hot spots) – and with little economic damage.

   For, again, once you have sheltered the elderly and the infirm there is little danger to anyone else. All of which, again, would have been well known by now if we had had a truly scientific and data driven approach. And done at county levels throughout all the localities in America.


   Then there is the ‘science’ of the isolation campaigns. Or they got us started down this road without even attempting any ‘science’ – or anything else for that matter. Do you ever remember hearing something to the effect of: “Here is my systematic presentation demonstrating that ‘social distancing’ and having to fire everyone from their jobs are one and the same? And that the one thing can’t be done without the other”? I do not remember hearing anything like this for a simple reason: no such presentation has ever been spoken. Not by anybody, not at any time and not anywhere.

   So, why are we still doing it then? Well, it is not because of science or data driven. Because, in this case, they never even tried to make a case tying the two things together. Not with science, not with data driven, not with anything whatsoever. Yet, we have still bought into their …. non-case (is that what you would call something like this?)

   And, from my other writings, there are several other matters that ‘science’ overlooked regarding the virus crisis. And the quickest way to describe it is to note how the case (or non-case?) is self-contradictory. To begin with, there have been no actual shut downs executed anywhere in the United States of America. There have been only shut down orders (not the same thing) – and with serious ramifications.       

   Because you have a bunch of idiot governors just issuing shut down orders (and leaving the people to their own devices to somehow shut themselves down) it has forced a contradiction. Because people still have to resource themselves to stay shut down (and still do things like eat food, have the utilities on and etc.) they have had to exclude 50-60% of the people as ‘essential’ workers. So, what real purpose does  the exercise still serve? Even among the 40-50 percent of the ‘shutdown’ people a large amount of them are going to be personally connected to the other 50-60 percent. Thus you have only a small percent of the population that is even, truly, sheltered-in-place to begin with.

   Next, because this ever decreasing percent of people still have to keep themselves shut down with their own devices, then they are only doing a limited sheltering. They will have to keep going in and out of their shelter to keep themselves provided. They will have to keep doing it more and more and more and more as the process keeps going on and on and on and on. Human nature will get them restless so that they will start to do it more and more even when they may not have to. So … in a virus this contagious how is this still supposed to kill a virus with an R factor of 3 people to 1?

   The only way that it is physically possible to have an actual shutdown (rather than just a shutdown order – not the same thing) is to execute it through the National Guard delivering the necessary food – and thereby have it be a 100% of the public, 100% of the time for 3 weeks type of a measure. But, if you are not going to do it correctly (with the National Guard), then you should not do it all – since it would then simply serve no purpose. That is, you will still have 50-60 percent of the populous with full exposure, the other part with only limited shelter (since they are left to their own devices to keep themselves fed). And that this will then keep getting more and more porous as the whole exercise goes on and on and on and on …. and the people have to keep going out more and more as it does.

   Or, let’s go the other way. Let’s say it is possible for the 50-60% ‘essentials’ to learn to operate more smartly and navigate around the virus. Then why can’t the other 40-50% of the people learn to do likewise? In which case, the shutdowns would never have been necessary. Thus, once you decline to execute a shut down properly (by way of the National Guard) then there can only be two possible outcomes. It will either turn out to be totally un-effective or totally unnecessary – with no other possible outcomes. And, no, this does not come from ‘science’ or ‘data driven’ – it comes from basic logic.


   Back, again, to the (non) case about the firing of everyone from their jobs because there is no other way to do ‘social distancing”. In numerous other writings, I have already made the point about physical barriers and the directional nature of the virus being better ways to block infection. But let us have some specifics from an actual example. Here, from restaurant advisers themselves, is the precise how for every restaurant to be laid out. And to wind up being laid out safer than every grocery store.

   So … why is eating out still perfectly ‘scientific’? It is because every restaurant can use a combination of

      a) masks (before you sit down to eat and before you get back up after eating).

      b) partitioning – give every booth a 270-degree partition using inexpensive materials. Thereby setting up a physical barrier to block transmission between table and table. Many restaurants (the Black Angus comes to mind) already have their booths set up this way.

   Now you simply combine b) (how you have your at-the-table safe environment) with common sense about your surroundings. (If you see an elderly couple coming your way: can’t you just wait until they have passed you – before you do your get up to leave process?)

      c) still not happy with b)? – Then how about a 15 to 20-dollar clear curtain to pull back and forth as people sit down and get up from the table?

     d) directional functions – Tables in the center of the room are not a problem. Put plexiglass (or other clear partitioning materials) in the center areas of the tables. Thus, the people you are facing are physically shielded from you. And the people you would be 3 feet away from are the ones who would be facing away from you. Thus, you would be safer, rather than less safe, than “6 feet, social distancing.”

     e) 6 feet, social distancing but plus – Like all businesses (essential or otherwise) there is still a point where you will have to be around other people at least somewhat: waiting to get seated, getting up and down from your table, leaving the restaurant, going to the restroom, etc. But ‘scientific’ only demands that you do 6 feet. I would demand that you do 6 feet plus masking.

     f) environmental controls. A finale would be to set up inexpensive UV or artificial sunlight to change the entire nature of the indoor area. This would make the virus less contagious as they would be inhibited by the controls involved.

   All of these retrofits would have a chump change cost. (Especially as compared with the ‘scientific’ types who never even proved that they needed to be closed in the first place.) But here is the ultimate reason that we must start allowing economics to triumph over both ‘science’ and central government planning. Where, under the present circumstances, is the incentive for any restaurants to do this? Since there is no guarantee that they will not keep you closed anyways.

   On the other hand: you give businesses the chance to do Safe-but-Open plans. Then they have their economic incentives to do all these things and will, therefore, do them. And here you finally come to the worst aspects of this of all.

   What most of the ‘science’ crowd will never think about is that most of these features would then stay in place AFTER the coronavirus. They would still be in place during all the next flu seasons – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives. They would still be in place during the next novel virus like another C19 – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives.

   But what if you have no incentive to do any of this? I.e., your fate is decided by Gavie Newsom rather than anything you might try to do to help yourself? Then all these things will not happen. And, thus, they will NOT be there for the next flu season – COSTING us more future lives. They will also not be there during the next novel virus outbreak like C19 – COSTING us more future lives. So, thank you, ‘scientific’ micromanagement for costing us more lives, over the long haul, than we would have suffered otherwise. Well done.


   Actual science and actual data driven: if you are under 65 and have no underlying health conditions, we now know that your fatality chances are less than 1 in many thousands. That you could take everyone between 18 and 65 (that are healthy), deliberately infect every one of them and still have less than 20,000 fatalities in America. So why are we now above the 70,000 fatalities mark – and with no apparent end in sight?

   From the beginning, the sole relevant issue has never been how many people get sick – but what types of people get sick. Literal example: I have 100 healthy young men and women in, say, their 20s sitting at a bar in a pre-corona style of doing business. Opposed to that I have one person, 75 plus w/ underlying conditions, who is not getting the protection he needs from society against infectious diseases. The one 75+ plus person is 100 times more likely to result in a fatality than all 100 of the other people combined.

   But here was the ‘scientific’ reasoning (of the ‘professionals’ and the ruling classes): they did not try to directly shield this population. Instead, the effort was to bubble wrap the entire population – to indirectly protect them. Because “they have to get it from somewhere”? That is, if you don’t want Group B to get something bad from a Group A then you have to quarantine BOTH groups. Even if the one Group B is a relatively small group and is relatively manageable – while the both groups would constitute trying to bubble wrap an entire population.

   But we have already discussed the second part of their ‘scientific’ reasoning: that we are not bubble wrapping the rest of the population anyways. Nor even any plausible amount that is even close to that. Sixty percent is totally un-bubbled due to being ‘essential’, another 30 is only half bubbled because they are left to their own devices to get themselves bubbled. And, thus, they must keep bobbing in and out of their bubbles.

   And, all throughout this time, the only in-danger group is the remaining 10 percent. But the ‘scientific’ consensus was, rather than directly protect this group through all feasible measures, we should leave them totally un-bubbled. Then we will leave another 60 percent of the populous totally un-bubbled and have the other 30 percent be only partially bubbled – to indirectly protect them. Smart ‘science’? Then why aren’t we getting better outcomes?


   So … we are coming to the end of our grand tour of ‘science’ – and how we have let other people do our thinking for us. I will be the first to admit that it is not much of a ride (and I appreciate you still staying on board if you are still reading this.) Therefore, we will make this final leg of the journey as quick as possible. What follows are a short list of practical, right here and now helps for the virus:

   1) Viruses have less tolerance to several chemicals than humans. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying chemotherapies to fight it. (As was successfully done against the AIDS virus.)

   2) Per the contagiousness question: viruses have less tolerance to several radiations and heat (in the outdoor environment) than humans do. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying these things into our outdoor/indoor environments. Thus, making the virus less contagious in these cases where environmental controls are inhibiting it.

   My point is that there are legit scientists, medical doctors and others who are working on all types of alternative medicines, chemotherapies, environmental controls etc. But where has the ‘data driven’ and ‘science’ crowds been? I refer not to the medical doctors but to the medical establishment: how much have you been hearing from them about the need for practical medicine in the right here and right now? I have heard little of that while Trump is often ridiculed simply for pushing for an “everything including the kitchen sink” approach.

   Therefore, I make my blunt assessment: I regard them as being little more than an ass-pain simply being in the way. Didn’t any of these high-level medical (and ‘scientific’) types ever take any classes on “Lead, follow or just get out of the way”?

    Thus, you have now been given my introductory tour on ‘Science’ vs. Thinking – this is the start of a trilogy on this important matter. That is, where we allow others to do our thinking for us on ‘scientific’ grounds. The three parts of this Trilogy (that will be coming out soon) are ‘Science’ and Human Behavior, ‘Science’ and God to then be finished with ‘Science’ and Nature.

   But here is the short, short, short form wrap up for all of it in advance. Never let anyone else do your thinking for you – ESPECIALLY if they claim to be talking ‘scientifically’!