Current News!


  • Is there a particular news item you liked? Your comments?



In the fourth episode of "Grand Crew" (season 1), I find the humor to be severely lacking. To the point, in fact, where it could be compared to the self-destructive act of a young Black man putting a gun in their mouth and pulling the trigger. It further puzzles me why some "civil rights" groups do not share this sentiment.

To clarify, there are certain behaviors that can be extremely harmful to oneself. I also believe the show exhibits this kind of behavior in a not-so-amusing way. This is my argument against the show's supposed comedic value.

Let me start by sharing some alarming facts that have adversely impacted the African American community in the last few decades. It has accounted for 50% of all the country's abortions, despite only making up only 12% of the population. So … sadly, many African American babies don't even make it past the womb. Those who do, however, face higher mortality rates compared to the general population. And for the simplest of reasons: God is not mocked. The design is that it takes two people to make a baby and, therefore, it takes the same two people to take care of one. You remove half of all your children's parenting and the outcome must always be bad. Little known, for example, is that even in areas where there was mass poverty and political oppression, the Black community used to be safe to walk at nights until recent times. Now, it clearly is not. 

Given this grim reality, one may wonder what the show is even about. Apparently, the show is specifically designed to cater to young Black men, as evidenced by its content. However, in at least this episode, it contains content that is like throwing gasoline on a fire. I refer to the way that this episode features a young African American woman who, and pardon the bluntness, makes a complete slut out of herself. The entire laugh lines are about a casual bang in the sack that is being encouraged, by the other characters, to not become a serious relationship.

It is essential to bear in mind that creating high-quality content requires more than just humor. The recent episode focused on the idea of engaging in meaningless sexual encounters with someone you have no emotional connection with, and to somehow finding it amusing. This type of messaging is concerning, especially considering the current social climate.

It is also worth noting that the audience being targeted is the same group of individuals who are experiencing the negative effects of this social context. These individuals are essentially being pushed to the brink of extinction due to these same immoral values that the show is using as a source of amusement. It is crucial to emphasize that this is not a laughing matter. Therefore, it is essential to be mindful of the type of content being created and ensure that it serves a more significant purpose than just providing a punchline.

And this goes back to the reason I began with the extreme example of the young Black man. This extreme example reflects what the makers of this show are essentially doing - setting up more young Black men to become victims of violence. This occurs when one takes away the fundamental family structures and results in the breakdown of society, leading to hopelessness, despair, and death. Therefore, I personally find this show as unfunny as a young Black man committing suicide - since destroying families leads to what amounts to a cultural suicide.

Additionally, I can think of other analogies (for how un-funny this episode was), such as the lead female actress named Nicole Byer. She portrays a character that only engages in casual sex. I find her performance as unamusing as a Charleena Lyles. This is my second analogy for this show, but it will need some clarification.

To begin with, I refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the deceased and do not judge Ms. Lyles as a person. My assessment pertains solely to her life's circumstances and the inadequate response of society towards it. Ms. Lyles resided in the Seattle, Washington area and met her demise at the hands of a law enforcement officer. However, no one seems to acknowledge her situation except for the final moments of her life when the police officer arrived.

For, additionally, it is widely known (but rarely discussed) that she suffered from severe mental health issues. And had previously attacked another police officer without any provocation! But, furthermore, here is where I will lead us back to the main point of this article. For there is yet another aspect of her life that remains unspoken of - she had been impregnated by several different men and had multiple illegitimate children as a result.

Could it be at least possible that this may have played a contributing factor in her declining mental health? As an advocate, I believe it's important to consider the potential consequences of engaging in casual sexual encounters with individuals who have no meaningful connection to you. Is it at least possible that the tragic case of Charleena Lyles serves as a cautionary tale in this regard? With that in mind, I found the lead actress in the episode to be completely unfunny, much like first analogy that I used about this program.

I would like to provide one final analogy, if you will allow me to do so with your patience. It relates to the title of this article, where I described the show as being "funny as all H_ _ _". I do believe in a literal Hell, and that the values portrayed on television, including the episode of Grand Crew that I am discussing, is an excellent way to get led there. Therefore, I truly mean what I stated in the title. I do, literally, think the show is as about as funny as someone going to Hell.

However, I must question why I am the only one discussing this issue. This show targets young Black men, so where are the supposed civil rights leaders and their involvement? Sadly, it seems that we may be waiting for a long time for them to take any action, based on recent events.

And what about the recent gutlessness of most evangelical ministers? The current state of evangelical ministers is concerning - as they seem to have lost their voice on topics like this that were once hotly debated. We now have worse TV programming, yet there is no longer any discourse about it. Instead, it seems as though the field has been totally taken over by the perversity merchants – and without any remaining opposition.

It's also unfortunate that many evangelical ministers have not even addressed these issues with their own congregations in a very long time – much less having any influence on society in general. It's time for them to get back into the discussion on these matters also. Why, again, are there so few of us who are willing to even engage in this discussion?



   Here we go again - he used everything about the virus to campaign against Donald Trump. And now he uses everything about the virus to excuse his own ineptitude. Decide for yourself:

    Other than the pandemic is it Bidens fault prices are going up?

Quora is still one of the relatively free social forums. Participate!!!


   Here we will get to something that is, probably, useless. But it is what everyone likes to do anyways: Monday morning quarterbacking. So, in this spirit, there are three basic ‘gets’ that we need to get out of our experience:

   1) The Third Way: Wise Interventionism

   2) Dialing back the Diplomats

   3) Tamping down our Emotionalism



   I have talked about the Wise Interventionism before. Our original war strategy was based on it: have only a few soldiers doing the boots on the ground. They just have to be the right type of soldiers – and using our newer and better technology. This is how we took down the Taliban with less than 100 soldiers on the ground.

   You had your one embedded Green Beret with only the proven, indigenous fighters – and he was there to direct the overwhelming air and naval bombardment. We drove the Taliban out of all their strongholds with this policy – and then never resumed it again for the next 20 years!

   Even as the Taliban took over half of the country (and we were still drawing down to just a small force), we still never resumed it. That is, the same overwhelming air and naval bombardment - that was always available to force them back out of wherever it is they had gotten into. Why, I don’t know – and no one is explaining it.

   But this is the essence of Wise Interventionism. It does not have to involve thousands of soldiers or any “Forever Warring It”. Whenever someone like the Taliban becomes problematic you simply use the U.S. Sixth Fleet as a form of pest control. Coupled with one Green Beret and whatever indigenous forces you can find that are truly willing to fight.



   The only time that diplomacy is successful is when the two parties involved both want it to be successful. In counterinsurgency, for example, it is only when the guerillas are losing badly (and don’t have a hope of turning it around) or when they are stalemated endlessly (and don’t have a hope of breaking the stalemate) that they will be willing to negotiate with the existing government.

   Most guerilla wars do end from a peace agreement between the government and the guerillas. But it is always the two of them doing the talks – and after the guerilla movement has started to run out of steam. There are no successful cases of a third party negotiating only with the guerillas – and then trying to bring the government in afterwards.

   That is why South Vietnam fell. The Final U.S. Peace Agreement (that the South Vietnamese government did not support) left them in an untenable position. This then led to extraordinary failures - that then led to a rapid collapse of their militaries. In the South Vietnamese case they tried to do a retrenchment of their forces to a more defensible position. Due again, to the untenable position they had been put in from the Paris Peace Talks.

   But, as will often happen in such instances, they mangled it badly - when they no longer had us to do any assistance. And then as they started to have a rapid collapse, we still refused to do any help. Not even using the massive air and naval bombardment to break off the enemies offensive - and give them a chance to regroup. Thus, we have the South Vietnamese experience and the uncanny parallels.

   Our latest Peace Agreement (that, like the South Vietnamese, the Afghan government played no role in) had a similar outcome. They were left in a vulnerable position while still being vulnerable to catastropic mistakes. In their case, it left them with all of the ordnance that it needed to project power – but without any of the ability to use any of it.

   For we had set them up with equipment that they could not manage on their own! Then we pulled out the contractors and advisers that they depended on to be able to do so. Thus, like South Vietnam, a rapid collapse is often preceded by simple incompetence that the former government had no assistance to avoid, no one to help them unravel it while it happened – and then no one to fend off the bad guys with just air and naval power so that they could get a second chance to regroup.

   Thus, it is true that the rapid fall of the South Vietnamese government and the Afghan National Army are very similar. But very few people know what those similarities are. It is not strictly cowardice but a Perfect Storm of other factors:

   1) They are left too totally on their own too quickly – and make amateurish mistakes. (Or are left in an amateurish situation - where they have all kinds of firepower but no way to use it).

   2) They are not allowed to recover from their mistakes; neither by someone being able or willing to jump in and correct the situation - or by being given a reprieve from enemy harassment through our overwhelming air and naval bombardment and

   3) In this environment, their morale collapses and you then have the rapid collapse of what should have been a superior armed force

   These are the three main similarities between the two spectacular collapses of a former allied government. It does not support the U.S.-Out-of-Everywhere narrative – nor is it a good reason to be, say, an unwise interventionist. You just have to understand what really happened.


   This is always the deadliest trap in any event: panic and emotionalism. In, say, a fire or some other event more people will often die from the panic and the stampeding - than from the actual danger. Similarly, we don’t have to be driven either by foolish ambitions of nation building. Or, however, by a deaf and blinded paranoia about “Forever Warring It”.

   Even now, the Afghan situation is retrievable. It is not true that all of Afghanistan has now fallen to the Taliban. It is not true that all resistance has been crushed; and that the complete consolidation of all power in all of Afghanistan (by the Taliban) is inevitable.

   We just have to keep our heads on; to not let the inappropriate relationship that we have just had with a canine make us become totally unthinking. We could have retrieved the situation at any time just by unleashing our air and naval bombardment at full blast – the same as in South Vietnam. A mismanaged situation (and however badly mismanaged) does not have to be a predestined fatal situation. And, afterwards, we would not have had to resume any “Forever Warring It” claptrap.

   To sum up: we fell into the wrong type of intervention; we should just have resumed the right type that we initially started out with. We fell into the wrong type of diplomacy; we should have just initiated the right type of diplomacy: where the Taliban and the government do all of the talking and make all of their agreements. While we served as the incentive for the Taliban to do so: by blowing the holy s_ _ _ out of them until they developed such an interest.

   And all throughout, we just need to stop being so emotional. There are plenty of ways to accomplish the items above without the proverbial “Forever Warring It” sob song. That is, if we will just keep our heads on. Also, I did mention that it is still a retrievable situation. But that will have to wait for our final piece of



   Our society needs to stop dismissing the moral dimensions that are involved with Welfarism. I do not credit it 
with benign platitudes like "At least their heart was in the right place" or "Just a liberal; meaning well but being 
impractical". I give you an example below:

What government program is not only inefficient but harmful?

   Look over - not only the absurdity of what is being done - but the simple immorality involved also. And join the discussion!



   Our back story is one of a public not engaged – and with a predictable outcome. The woke establishment has been running this society for decades; the only reason you are hearing about it now is because it has finally hit critical mass. Federal Law Enforcement, the top military brass and the corporate board rooms – three places I could never even fathom becoming a Leftist stronghold – are now, in fact, Leftist strongholds.

   But why do I maintain that there was such a predictability to all of this? It is because of these new expose videos – showing teachers (and pardon my blunt language) doing a crap on their school district’s parents. One example was a teacher’s remarks that “They can’t live without us being their children’s babysitters”. This was made as a sarcastic response to reasonable demands that they simply get their wh _ _ ing asses back to work.

   Or the political culture. What is political correctness? One wise observer described it as a state of affairs where you give up the right to have an opinion – just so someone will still dislike you just as strongly. And there are plenty of Veritas videos to show that that is a fair and accurate representation of our political culture.

   The entertainment industry? That is where an entire population of people (literally) just sat there and allowed someone to continuously insult them. For that is what is involved in the  relentless indoctrination exercises that are done by the modern entertainment industry. They are incessantly doing all of this endless tell-us-how-to-think programming about sex acts (and lots of other things as well).

   And for that most basic of all reasons. They simply like the power trip involved. It is not about moral views or religion but about power. They enjoy the power trip involved in trying to mold an entire public into a bunch of mini-mes on how every one should think. And the personal insult involved should be obvious; they regard you as the dim bulb who needs this indoctrination - to get you to see the proper light.

   It is all about power tripping it; that is also why unilateral dictates are still handling Covid policy after a year and a half. Hasn’t this been enough time for all of the Governors to call for their State legislatures to convene - and go back to something called a legislative authorization for further policy practices? Are their rights to do unilateral dictates supposed to last for the rest of our lives - or what? And where is the popular opposition to this?

   Thus, we now have universal wokeness. Joe Biden is a woke President, all of the levers of power are in the woke mode. The military brass are now a bunch of worthless, woke Milleyites. And it is a trap of our own making. We are now left with a power structure that can't win a war against our adversaries - but is constantly in a state of war against its own citizens - and the need for us to be 'wised up' (and by people like them???)

   We should have shut down all of these types of power trippers decades ago. But now that the military, law enforcement and the corporate board rooms have all defected over – who is left to help us with that task – if we should finally try to do it now? No one; Trump was the last major political figure who was willing to take the fight to these types of forces.

  And he is no longer the President. So the next Thursday blurb will be:




  Another piece about the resolve of China to win. Where is the resolove of Joe Biden?

Why has the communist China emerged as a powerful nation despite people being made to think by Western media that everything about communism is substandard?


   To represent ‘their’ back story (the leadership behind the melt down of Afghanistan) what better example is there than old “White Rage” Mark Milley. (He is the sanctimonious dork who is trying to pass himself off as a 4-star General). He recently testified about his moral superiority over the Hicks, Rubes and Common Folks in regard to the new ‘woke’ gospel. He is a passionate advocate for the politicization of the military – and therein is what created people like himself in the first place. Here are some of the highlights:

   He graduated with degrees in Politics and International Relations from an Ivy League school. And he comes from an Ivy League background. He got his commission from the ROTC rather than going up through the ranks. This is rapidly becoming a model for our cadre of Generals. It is not what produced George Patton; it is what produces Mark Milleys. Out of all this: he eventually developed a reputation as a Big Thinker but an impractical doer – with this, perhaps, being a product of his background.

   He rose up through the ranks through a superficial intellectual prowess and the smooze factor. (It was Trump who advanced him to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chief of Staff – based on the smooze factor. We now know that he always held Trump in contempt – while still gladly bucking for his promotions in Trump’s administration). Thus, the stereotypical “rising to the level of one’s incompetence.”

   He knew how to make rank, to have at least a superficial intellectual prowess and to pride himself as a Big Thinker. The problems tended to occur when he did not know his backside from the wherever - on implementation issues. With this being followed, as we will see, by him also having dishonesty and a general lack of ethics.

   1) The Army Fitness Test – became overly politicized, impractical, and showed his sense of his own superiority. He repeatedly ignored advice from the more practically minded and he also demonstrated his ethical problems. He suppressed anything that would make himself look negative and skewed the findings.

   2) Black Market Arms scandal – gangbangers have been known to infiltrate the Armed Services for corrupt reasons. They wound up getting extensive caches of weaponry from the Army through these types of actions. This does not have to impugn his administration since it can happen to anyone. However, he did his (usual) downplaying of the problem and the up playing of himself as the scandal broke.

   3) The Iraqi War Report – it was simply a rock-solid product. He kept repeatedly delaying its release by setting up more and more hurdles. It would still keep passing all of these hurdles due to the fact that it was, simply, a rock-solid report. But what forced him to release it? You should be able to guess by now: a bad press release. He got caught sitting on it by a news story; then he got on his white horse, called out his media cavalry and finally let the report get out. With, of course, as much self-serving aspects as could be mustered along with it.

   4) Milley Vanilly – there is no need to go into great depths about his throwing in with the Black Lives Matter, the anti-Trumpers and the Critical Race Theory/Systemic Racism crowd. He did an in-your-face acknowledgment of it in his testimony. Along with a biased anti-Trump hype  of the Jan 6th riot. Which leads to what could be the worst point about him of all …

   5) Is Mark Milley a traitor? And I mean by the strict, legal standard. I was always confused about a story about Pelosi. She is said to have called the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff asking him to disobey any of Trump’s orders (during the Jan 6 unrest). But at the time it made no sense.

   But now we know who this person was (Milley). And now we know that he has a posterior suck relationship with Pelosi and the PC Left political crowd and etc. So, I have come to believe that the story is, indeed, true after having had some initial skepticism.

   Therefore, at least arguably – and if I am right - Pelosi is a traitor by strict, legal definition. She tried to persuade someone in the military to disobey a Commander in Chiefs direct orders – and during a time of ongoing civil unrest. But what did Milley do? If he in any way, shape or form accommodated her then he is a strictly-by-legal-definition traitor. And being in the military – and doing it during a time of ongoing civil unrest – he could, conceivably, get shot by a firing squad of his former subordinates.

   Thus, you have the illustrious career of Mark Milley. But now we need to tie this into Afghanistan. His involvement in Afghanistan was extensive and right in line with all of his worst defects. He did his Big Thinking (but impractical clap trap) ideas. He lied and obfuscated about what was really going on. He downplayed the problems and up played his own (presumed) virtues, etc. What you saw above in the first five items is what you got from him in Afghanistan.

   But we have still not told the full back story until we explain the one all important question. How did he get to where he got in the first place – to be able to wreak the havoc he wreaked? It is simple: he is simply a product of our times. Everything is politicized, ergo, the political animals will rule. So, I will give just one example of the politicization – and the sheer dumb         s _ _ t level of  foolishness involved - about our whole Afghanistan apparatus.

   Did you know that they hoisted the Gay Liberation Flag over our embassy in Kabul? Even ignoring all of the PC or the question of gay liberation yes or no – how wise is it to do that in the middle of an Islamic country? What did they have planned next – an artist’s rendition of the Prophet Mohammed lip-locking it with a transgender man? This is the type of an IQ level that you will only find in the U.S. government – and during the onslaught of PC.

   In short, the perfect environment for someone like Mark Milley to flourish in. For there has always been a potential problem with generals. To become one, you have to be appointed to it by a politician: the President. To actually land the job, you have to be approved by an entire Senate full of politicians. Further: each new star can only come to you through the same means – you do not get to rise up through the ranks as a general. It is a 100% politician dependent job.

   However, it did not used to be a problem. But now we politicize everything: the whole world seems to revolve around gay dudes with gender identity problems - and how to make them feel comfortable in their own skins. Or feminism. Or the Gay Liberation Movement or the … unlimited number of other political things that politicians can always dream up.

   But here is where we came to the catch point and it all hit the fan. They then decided to start shopping out these political agendas to the military – that is when the potential problem became a real one. And the military then became the stomping grounds for ‘woke’ soldiers and the Milleyites.

   So, we now have two choices: follow this fork in the road until it leads to our destruction - as Taliban forces will always outplay them with their foolishness and their incompetence. Or accept what it takes to get the right type of generals. To wit, we have to get the politicians to shove it with their politics – in this one special zone of our lives.

   Get our generals based on them killing the asses of our enemies. Rather than on them kissing the asses of our politicians. This new road (or, actually, just a return to our old road) would return us to getting George “Blood and Guts” Patton types. The current road will continue to swell the ranks of our generals with useless wastes of flesh like the Milleyites.

   Thus, the next segment will talk about our own back story (the average American citizen). None of this has happened in a vacuum. We also bear a responsibility for the type of leadership that we wind up with. So the next Thursday blurb will be:




  What is wrong with how we have raised this generation? Whatever happened to passing on our society and its values and norms to the next generation? To preserve our society with its basic values and norms? Join the Quora forum on this matter.

What do prolifers think of people wrongfully executed on death row?




   Why give up anything - for the promise of being given something that you already have? I asked this same question before in regard to environmental issues and how it affects our energy policies. We already have environmental protection – and on the increase from our current policies.

  We already have Greener technologies coming online – and on the increase from our current policies. So, I asked why to shut down our oil production – or anything else – on the promise of getting to a goal to which we are already headed? Now we have a comparable situation: why modify an economy - in exchange for promises that have already been fulfilled by it?

  What has the best actual record of shifting the tax burden more to the rich? Of taking a higher percent of the working classes off of the tax rolls. Or of redistributing wealth to the lowest parts of the population? Not socialism – and not a Bidenesque “building back better.” The correct answer is that it is a free enterprise system - that has a 3% unemployment rate.

   Which is what we had. Sweden, for example, does not have the most progressive tax system that makes the rich pay the most. We do; but we did it in the free market way. What happens if you allow four times more people to become millionaires: you can cut their tax rates in half. And still get twice as high a percentage of the taxes being paid by them - rather than by the rest of us.

   And do not thank the Left for taking a large percent of the working classes off of the income tax rolls. Every tax measure that did this had an (R) behind its name. Beginning with Reagan (and his bipartisan approved tax reform plan) is where it started. After years of neglect, the child tax deduction was given a massive increase – and was indexed against inflation. This was done to ensure that the value of the deductions would not depreciate over time. This was uniformly accepted as progressive, but it was still left undone until Reagan – the Republican who was “for the rich.”  

   And we already have a direct subsidy for children in America. Newt Gingrich spearheaded the first tax credit for children of working families. It directly reduced your tax burden dollar for dollar for each child. No socialists and/or Democrats to give credit to here either.

  But now we have Frivolous Joe Biden and his welfarism that threatens it. His plan does nothing but take the existing plan and make a cheap knock off of it that turns it into a welfare plan. Thus, if you are the number one threat to American security today (being an unwed mother, actually) then Frivolous Joe will keep you comfortable. And thereby be able to steer the results of your unwed motherhood merrily down its way – to the next round of rioting and crime waves.

   (A side bar: he has also welfarized unemployment insurance also. Which is what it was: a small insurance policy to cover for some of your wages if you were involuntarily out of work. It was not, as it is now, something where you can sit on your duff for 40 to 50 thousand dollars’ worth of income – for doing nothing).

   These are the basic differences between the frivolous world of the New American Left and genuinely serious policy. Pro-family policy can be joined with government policy – as the Reagan/Gingrich plans demonstrated. But welfarism is anti-everything. It is anti-God (“If you don’t work, you don’t eat” – Sorry, Leftists, but that is in the Bible), anti-American and even anti-family rather than pro-family. When, that is, you look at all of the negative side effects and over the long-haul perspective.

  Since this is our wrap-up of our “Frivolous” series, I do not want to go on too long but what of the third point? Redistributing wealth. Look at what actually happened. The people on the bottom had double digit wage increases. Families have a seven thousand dollar increase in disposable income. And the wealthy had a flat rate of income growth so … why isn’t that a successful wealth redistribution? Rather than a socialistic, unsuccessful redistribution where you just make everyone equally impoverished?

   We already had our economics exactly the way that we should have wanted it. So why can’t some people simply leave a good thing bad enough alone – and let it remain a good thing? It is for that most frivolous reason of all.

   It is just because Trump did it – and therefore they must undo it. I wonder where you can find that type of an economic analysis in any recognized economics textbooks. But the Left need not worry everything is so polarized – even in our basic educational institutions – that I am sure there will be a new such textbook coming out any day now.

   So: my crystal ball prediction. Look for the upcoming First Edition of  “Just Because Trump Did It.” It will be the new study guide for all first-year economics students. It would not even surprise me if they were to try to find ‘scientific’ and ‘data driven’ ways to ‘prove’ that that is, in fact, good economics: just undoing something simply because Trump did it.

  Sounds absurd? Well, of course it is. But once you get to censor everyone else’s different opinions you can sell anything to anyone. They have already accomplished that so why not put it to effective use?



  Why people remain so invested in Dr. Anthony S. Fauci is a mystery to me. Join the Quora forum on the matter. I have taken off any gloves -

What debunked medical theories have made a comeback?



  Merrick Garland (the new Attorney General) has set up a new effort to strip guns from people - and has declared that to be his answer to the new crime problem. Not only is it not even intended as a serious effort, it is so ridiculous I will not even bother discussing the merits of the matter. But you desparately need to hear the back story about something called The Chaos Theory - the real problem that is going to keep infringing deeper and deeper into our lives.


   “We will make South Africa ungovernable” – this was the specifically expressed tactic of the African National Congress in its’ plan to bring down the apartheid regime. An Oliver Tambo said it, and he lived long enough to see the regime fall in 1994. A minor problem, however: how do you put a genie like that back into the bottle? Once you have made a place ungovernable - how do you get it back into governability again?

   It is almost 30 years later – and the new South African government has still not done so. Rampant and uncontrollable crime was a side effect of the ungovernability and they still have it as a fact of life to this day. More chilling are a recent specific set of riots. They have just watched a major urban area get burnt straight to the ground. Read the article below:


South Africa Riots


   Even more chilling, though: read the precise words of the people who orchestrated this latest chaos:

  “Supporters of former South African President Jacob Zuma (the communist replacement for the former apartheidists – and all-around despot and grifter) on Sunday vowed to render the country ungovernable if he is jailed. In a show of force, loyalists clad in their African National Congress...”

  In short, the tactic is still even in play - and after all that it has done to destroy a once beautiful country. Once you play around with things like that then when does it ever end? It still has not ended in South Africa after almost 30 years. And it is not likely to end very soon in South Chicago either. We have also played around with these types of games.

   Our 2020 summer of rioting was just as orchestrated as the Tambo campaign against the Afrikaner government of the former South Africa. And it was just as orchestrated as the current rioting in the town of Durban in the current South Africa. It is called the Chaos Theory – and places like Portland, Oregon are just as much a part of that mindset as a bunch of third world communist revolutionaries are in other parts of the world.

   But it also infects people at the lowest levels also - and with a general attitude of lawlessness. Not only did Antifa use the Chaos Theory to agitate and destabilize our political system but the toxin spreads down to the everyday person as well. And this then makes the problem turn uncontrollable and where no one is any longer in charge. Examples:

   1) There were repeated spontaneous rioters also after a while of the 2020 organized riots. But one FOX news host lamented “You can’t just round up a group of people and start burning people out and breaking things every time you see something that you don’t like!” Well, why not? Didn’t they just watch a more organized group of people do that same thing all summer long? While the local governments kept their thumbs up their posteriors? And pressed no charges?

   They have watched the others abuse the system and get away with it. So now they abuse the system and get away with it. And because others are now watching them do it, then what do you think will happen next?

   2) The legalization of looting. Now, in California, you can watch regular broadcasts of people who walk into high end department stores, casually round up everything they want and then walk out with it. They are unopposed and do not even hide their identities or act like they need to get away – because they do not.

   They have watched the others abuse the system and get away with it. So now they abuse the system and get away with it. And because others are now watching them do it, then what do you think will happen next?

   3) Bail reform. I watched someone who got arrested for, literally, the 200th time (plus or minus a small amount) and walked out onto the street. I then watched him cold cock an elderly woman who simply happened to be walking by. And that he did it simply because he knew that he could.

   He has watched the others abuse the system and get away with it. So now he abuses the system and gets away with it. And because others are now watching him do it, then what do you think will happen next?

  Thus you have the history of The Chaos Theory and a quick rundown on how it is being made operational now. Along with the cascading consequences that will always follow in its wake. We may well even wind up with an entire generation living in an anarchic society - as chaos keeps feeding into more chaos and there is a cycle that never ends.

   But Merrick Garland has a great strategy to deal with all of this(?): be a gun grabber, blame the National Rifle Association, blame Trump supporters, etc. And that is it. That is his whole strategy for how to put these different genies back into the bottle that have fed the lawlessness.

   And I had always thought that Biden was a rather dim bulb even when he did not have Alzheimers. And I am sure he is a dimmer bulb than ever now that he does have it. But now I know why he picked Merrick Garland for his AG: he still makes Joe Biden look like a genius by comparison.



  It is an interesting exercise; picking both a pro and con position for something. It is another chance to chime in on important issues.

What are the arguments for and against identity politics?

  I am not one-dimensional; it is right to try to understand why people might feel the way that they do. Hopefully, I was just able to show that it is still not the right perspective to have!



   You have heard a lot of the particulars: shut down our oil pipelines and open up the Russian ones. Trillions of dollars for Green New Deals. But it is the big picture that shows the utter frivolousness of the Biden plan for our energy future. Here is the short hand version of that big picture:

Why give up anything - for something that you already have?

   We are already getting a Cleaner and Greener Environment from the Free Enterprise system and the advancements of technology. I have said it before: even if we permanently shut our country down until we all starved to death it would still make no dent in the Global Warming; we are that little a part of the problem. And we are on track to be less and less a part of it – and all from the Free Enterprise system and the combination of evolving technologies.

   So why do a Green New Deal to solve a problem that does not even exist? This will be the essential argument (throughout the next several offerings of the Thursday Blurb) as we examine all aspects of the Biden Administration's policies. And I wish I could stop there. But it is also a case of corruption that is deep and filthy.

   Thus, this will also be playing a role in the catastrophic type of policies from this coming Administration. It is, again, because Biden is also, unfortunately, a Total Crook/Rich Man’s Best Friend. It is not even about high mindedness – or just simple frivolousness and foolishness – that will be driving the matter. With this in mind: now look at the particulars in this light.

   1) Shut down our pipeline but open up a Russian one. If it was really about doing away with pipelines (on behalf of Mother Earth) then why didn’t he shut down both of them? Answer: we may have been overlooking something - the pipeline was something that our Canadian friends and allies were using to bring their Canadian gas into the United States.

   Big Business interests in the U.S., however, had an excellent reason to want it shut down. Shutting it down will result in less competition from a cheaper supplier of natural gas. And this will be true on all things Joe Biden: a total screw job for the working classes. And a total sweet heart deal for the specific rich people that have successfully curried favor with The Corrupt.

   2) Green jobs. The same old same old. Each job will be so overpriced that every new Green Job will bleed the Holy H _ _ _ out of our overall economy. As I have written elsewhere: you get enough of those kinds of jobs created – and then bleeding out our entire economy to produce just a handful of them – and we will all be looking back fondly at the Great Depression. But, as always, specific well-off types will be raking it in for those billions and trillions that are going to get bled away.

   Remember Biden’s promise to have the government create thousands of electric charging stations for the electric cars? But how are the current electric cars still able to run? It is because these electric car producers are currently paying for the production of the current charging stations that are currently out there.

   And, so far, they have been able to keep up with the demands for more of these charging stations - to keep servicing their more electric cars that they are producing. BUT currently it is all being handled by the Free Enterprise system. So, who (and who only) still gains when the government starts building these stations – at dozens of times the normal cost that the free markets would create them in – and then providing them for free for the electric cars?

   Isn’t it the electric car companies – and them only? The government will start paying for half of their overhead costs by taking over half of their functions that they have been doing. But all of the rest of us will still be paying for these electric charging stations – and at the astronomically inflated prices that government jobs programs always cost.

   And it will always be the same story: a subsidy, a freebie, a bailout or a something for a major woke corporation – that we will pay through the nose for. And how will we get our ultimate `reward’ out of all this? The government then uses these major woke corporations to be their flunkie enforcers - for all of their mandates (masks, vaccinations, censorship, etc).

   Or for all of their hit squad activities against people that the current government may not like. In short, the government first takes away our money to subsidize the rich and the powerful. And then uses the rich and powerful to take away our freedoms with their new-found woke-ism.

   3) But why help out the Russians and the Chinese with their pipelines and jobs? The same reason: that it is actually about basic corruption rather than any idealistic Mother Earth Infatuation. Combined with things I have mentioned before about how they (Russia and China) are good at playing the corruption game.

   Russia and China have successfully played The Reverse Game. They have allowed more capitalism in their countries to suck us in – it has not worked out according to our original game plan. The original plan was to use our capitalism to suck them in - and get them to leave their communist systems to join us.

   Instead, we are now supporting their merely modified dictatorships – and their continued hostility towards us – by letting them suck us in with bribes and pseudo-capitalist inducements. They let their pipelines (and other projects) have two bits worth of U.S. involvement for our multinational corporations  - and then use their completed projects to suck the rest of the American economy dry. Good capitalist thinking on their part: `Invest’ in bribes (for two bits and a shoe shine) - to a small handful of corporations - so that you can then destroy all of America’s corporations over the long term.

   In capitalism, they call that leveraging seed money. Fairly clever crony capitalism for a bunch of ex-Communists. And it can only work if we are governed by the most corrupt sons of a beaches that have ever gotten into power. And, so far, it appears to be working quite well – doesn’t it?



   I am throwing this out to the masses: I will give it my own answer later on - after I hear from others. It is about a cure being worse than the disease.

What about the new numbers showing a loss of 11/2 years to the average life span Couldnt the stress of prolonged lock downs and prolonged breaks in normalcy be playing a major part in this?

  Give it an answer (I am not Joe Biden; I don't love the sound of my own voice. Hope to hear from yours).



  We are talking about one of the worst aspects of Donald Trump’s under water poll ratings (that he had throughout most of his term). It is because of this that Joe Biden was able to simply hide under a rock while he ran out the clock. Literally. (They just have a term for it called “under a lid”; “the campaign is under a lid for the rest of the day” was the most frequently quoted statement of his campaign spokesman.)

   Oh Gosh! I meant spokesperson – how could I have been so misogynistic!!

   And (the above) was one of his lead campaign issues – of what few indeed there were. Identity politics check lists. For example, in one instance every nominee was to be a Black woman. He literally said that, “I have a list of Black women ready for the next Supreme Court nominee.”

   Check lists for gender, check lists for race, check lists for gender AND race. (Full stop: I have heard that they have traced down the lineage of the ancient Hittites from the Biblical times. Has he put forward a transgendered Hittite yet?) Check lists for what type of sex acts you do, etc. Everything except for a normal check list: qualifications.

   And how do you get a mandate from out of this? One pundit described his mandate (after maybe winning the election) as “Wear a mask and don’t tweet!” As in virtue signaling – the practice of meaningless gestures to somehow symbolize something. This is done in the hopes of making some type of subconscious, poll-tested impression. It is hard to imagine a more frivolous exercise to be engaged in – but that was the essence of his entire campaign. (And how he has since governed, also.)

   But what is there for a mandate? A mandate to beat the stuffing’s out of America for its ‘systemic’ racism? That seems to be Joe Biden’s take away. And only the most frivolous person in the world would come to such a conclusion. But that is, apparently, Joe Biden’s conclusion. But there must be a word of caution here:

  The handlers - who propped up Biden - are not stupid or frivolous (or suffering from Alzheimer’s Dementia). They know how to take advantage of an opportunity when it presents itself. So … what if you could really get someone to keep his mouth as much as possible, stay out of sight as much as possible and still get carried over the finish line? What type of opportunities could that create?

   It is exactly the type of opportunities that they are now using to their advantage. Because Biden is an empty wind bag they get to write him up in any way that they wish. He can be presented to the public as an empty slate, he can be written on as an empty slate. And because, unfortunately, his medical condition makes his mental condition a virtually empty slate then it is (incredibly enough) like a tailor-made situation to foster a politician like Joe Biden - as he is in his current state.

   It is a bizarre set of circumstances – but we need to start with the understanding that such a peculiar state of affairs is, indeed, how we have come to be where we are. Or we will not be able to keep up with the Spin Machine that can keep using him as an empty slate. We will attempt to keep up with their Spin Machine as we start the next several blurbs on the specifics of Biden’s actual policies.

  But I believe it was necessary to start with the back story: what has happened to Biden, how did he wind up getting into office in the first place, etc. But now, for the next several articles, we will do the details. Why on policy after policy it will all be nothing but the frivolous foolishness of an ailing old man – and yet one that is directing the Ship of State.

   We may be in for a scary voyage.



  Fairness is also important rather than merely being accurate. So, I will tell the Biden story more fully. At one time, Joe Biden could have retired from politics as a very revered person – and he would have deserved it. Up until the 1990’s he was a very fair and bipartisan person; he was even very kindly – particularly to a Strom Thurmond as he became too old for the job and gradually came to need more and more help. And he conducted fair hearings as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman – the last major Democrat to ever make any type of a hearings process to be a fairly done matter.

  Now, he did have his streaks of that frivolous nature – even back then. But it was nothing that he was not in good company with. Examples:

  He loved to hear the sound of his own voice (don’t all politicians?). He plagiarized speeches, made up aspects of his biography and did other relatively low-level political infractions. He was also always a chronic talker with extraordinarily little do – he had no legislative record of any note. So far there is nothing that even stands out that much for Biden. Not much of a record but not that much worse than a lot of other politicians.

   And, while he did have status and seniority, he did not really use his status to actually work the issues and be an effective power broker. Thus, he was light on policy and mostly into the limelight aspects of his job. Kind of glib, relatively nothing burger but maybe not what you would call totally frivolous. And he did have the compensating factors mentioned above.

  Also, at that time he was not a crook with his hands in people’s pockets. That started to happen at some time in the 90’s and was the end of any good that he may have originally believed in. Whatever it is that changed him, he became more frivolous and pure blather. And he became minus his good points: we wound up with a very foolish, frivolous person but minus the likability, the virtues and … any brakes on his behavior. He now exercises virtually no control over himself or his Ship of State.


  He has still not privately evolved as a person. He was always racially insensitive and much more a product of a well-off Lilly White area like Delaware. He went along with the Democrat party on racial issues but did little personal evolution. But now it is at the extremes:

   He still stereotypes African and Mexican Americans on a regular basis – and in ways that are insensitive. But now he is testy and does it deliberately if you do not cater to him:

       1) He stereotyped a young African American as a crack addict for asking him a perfectly reasonable question.

       2) Says “You AIN”T Black” if you don’t vote for him. Note: he said “AIN’T” Black. Biden never uses this word – except in this type of a racial context. Just more of what we are saying. As an individual he has evolved extraordinarily little – while growing increasingly smarmy at racial identity in a way that does not suit him very well.

   He is also not the same person behind closed doors with all others either. Behind closed doors he gets hopelessly mired in detail and is swearing and abusive – something that you would have never seen him do in the pre-Crook Biden era before the late 90s. So, while he was, initially, a somewhat frivolous person (as he was back in the day) now it is worse by extremes – but also minus the likability that he used to have.


   He also no longer has any blue-collar touch – if he ever truly had it. But he no longer even goes through the motions. He has capitulated to the Chinese Communist Party to cater to his Business-as-Usual-Businessman clique of Republicans who supported him. This is along with endless amounts of cheap labor from illegal immigration to cater to the Chamber of Commerce types – who also worked for him rather than the Republicans.

   Big Tech billionaires also exercised censorship to aid in his election efforts - and keep him shielded from any bad media stories coming out. Does anyone think that they did this because Joe Biden is for the average person? Then why would all of these people support him since they clearly are not for the average person??? Thus, the increasingly frivolous nature of everything he does … is now minus whatever virtues he used to have for compensation.


   And not all of this can be blamed on his new mental problems. Even when he was in his good era: not on the take, liked Republicans, was kindly to all, etc. he still had a bad character flaw of simply being gutless. I remember thinking at the time that I would always trust his personal instincts - but that I would not count on him to back me up under pressure. For he was a capitulator.

   He caved in on Robert Bork. He was adamant he would still support him and even if, quote “they will tear me apart”. They did not have to – he caved in without them even getting started at doing any of the tearing. Maybe they just made some type of a tearing sound – and that is all that it took to rattle him?

   He said that he knew Clarence Thomas was innocent – and that he would be his biggest defender. While he did, ultimately, run as fair a set of hearings as was possible under the circumstances – he still backed down as his defender: “I just said that I would be his strongest defender at getting a fair hearing”. That is not what he originally said.

   But now? It is just full open on everything. He was never up to the job of facing down a Leftist take over of his party even during his better days – but now he is just an open vessel to be filled. And that is the part that is due to his new mental state. He now has no more capability to winnow through policy matters - than he can winnow his way through a Press Conference unattended.

   Now, in some ways, Joe Biden is still a good memory for those of us who are older - and who still remember the pre-Crooked version. Alas, if he had just quit out of politics during the late 90s – he would have had  retirement with honors, be the elder Statesman, would still have bipartisan well-wishers, etc. Not going to happen now!




   Snobbish people are nevcr as smart as they think that they are - isn't that what makes them become snobs in the first place? The people who have been mishandling the death tallies for the Corona virus are now making almost daily mistakes. See the "Pro's" becoming the Potzers - right before our very eyes:




   Pardon my delay for this Thursday blurb- but I feel that it was called for. The news was very troubling, and I had to check it out first before writing again. I had stated that there were signs of new and, potentially, unparalleled military aggression coming out of China. I hope you can appreciate my putting the article on hold for that reason – until I could further investigate the matter.

   And, just like the Russians of yesteryear, they made it easy to confirm. They expressly stated that “bloodshed” may result from the days ahead. (Russia’s former corroboration of their intent was to announce their express desire to “achieve the correlation of forces necessary for world socialism”). So … I guess I am not the world’s greatest investigative journalist: all I had to do was wait for the Chinese to confirm their own intentions. But then what about those who do pride themselves as great, investigative journalists but still cannot figure out the obvious – even while our adversaries are in the process of confirming it?

   For they (the Chinese) are, unlike a Biden or a Harris, a very un-frivolous bunch. They know what they want, they are willing to plan it for years and they could care less what we think about it. So just what has been the China plan – that may now be culminating in a final outbreak of actual, aggressive action? Well, it started 30 years ago - and it centers around that old saying that turnaround is fair play.

   Back then: first there were the Russians. The plan was to get them addicted to some of the fruits of capitalism to get them lured away from Marxism. It seems to have worked and, for a while, some political liberalism even followed after the economic liberalism that came to Russia. But China was smarter than that – and, apparently, than us as well.

   There is a reason why they seemed to switch so seamlessly from Marxism into forms of capitalism – unlike with the Russians where it was much messier. And there is also a reason why they never even gave any nod to any political liberalism – also unlike the Russians. It is because they never truly switched their system or their goals – it was all merely a change in tactics. They took on capitalist aspects to bag us – not like with the Russians where we got them to take on some capitalist aspects to bag them. This is why China was smarter than either us or the Russians.

   For what have the Chinese accompanied their economic opening to the West with? None, zip and nada as far as becoming freer internally. But look what they are doing to us:

   1) Each economic transaction always acts as a net drain to us and never to them

   2) Every person from China (who is here as a part of their economic activity) is required by their government to engage in espionage

   3) The transactions are designed to act as bribes to the capitalist classes to attempt a world domination by another means (again: did not, in fact, change their system – merely their tactics)

   4) between the manipulation of currency, the counterfeiting, thefts and espionage they are using all of the Western world’s capitalist economies as their own personal ATM machine: to drain our resources away from us and to themselves instead. And

   5) it is being accompanied with a massive undertaking to expand, modernize and deploy their military might in pursuit of further aggression and domination of the world through the more classical methods of domination also

   And this was pre-planned from the beginning. But here is where we get to the real catch of the matter. The ultimate salute to a bunch of Chinese Communists playing capitalism up smarter than their Western adversaries. For the one and only answer is the complete de-coupling of our two countries.

  And I mean that literally and completely. No business from China comes our way and no business from us goes their way. But why should that be a problem?

   Suppose we get 500 billion dollars of business per year from China and give away a trillion dollars of business to them each year. Accompanied by bribes, espionage, currency manipulation, counterfeiting, etc. Why shouldn’t that not only be necessary but welcome as well?

   For how can it not be in the national interest to switch from being in arrears for 500 billion dollars per year to being to the good for 500 billion dollars instead? Plus stopping the subversion of our country in the process (while there is still some of it left). But, if you are thinking this, that just goes to show that you have missed the main point – for just why the decoupling is so necessary.

  Our home web page talks about these “one sided trade deals – and done on behalf of  multinational corporations – that are taking our country down the tubes.” And therein is the point. For, if you recall, their tactic was to incorporate some capitalistic aspects – but to bag our capitalists as a domination through slightly different tactics. So, while the country is getting fornicated through the hurt zone (by the current arrangements) there was still the 500 billion dollars of business that still gets had by some American citizens. GUEEESS WHOOO????

   It is the “done on behalf of these multinational corporations” types. And THEY are still perfectly happy with it even though these are the things “that are taking our country down the tubes”. And all in line with the pre-planned strategy (of more than 30 years old now) of the Chinese Communist Party.

   Bag the capitalists so that you can take down your enemies’ capitalist country. Thus, the need for the total and utter de-coupling. But it is the precise reason why it will be so hard to actually do it – since their plan has gone on so long and gotten embedded so deeply. Which then, of course, shows all the more reasons for the need!

   With this finally understood, it now brings us back to the present – and what is now becoming the increased threat of overt military aggression as well as just the economic and political aggression of the last 30 years of Communist Chinese machinations. But how will they actually manifest themselves?   It may not even matter. The only good strategy for a superpower stand-off is to try to avoid having one. But it has, again, been blown by the glib and capitulating actions of Biden.

   It is a case where radical and/or corrupt domestic politics has now gone full throttle on the foreign policy stage also. Secretary of State Blinken originally hailed Trump’s Get-Tough policy but stated that it should be better coordinated with our allies. This was not a bad initial position to take. But then comes Biden … with his hands in other people’s pockets taking bribes and kickbacks. And placating the right-wing clique that also helped him to get elected – the Business As Usual Businessmen that wanted to get rid of Trump to let the good times roll again. Well, it will be noticeably short lived.

   For the one thing that China is not is frivolous. They will have no problems thanking us for re-opening the door. And then entering in to kick some body’s brains in. It has been a part of my other write-ups and I say it again. There is one certain way to incite our foreign adversaries: it is to capitulate to our own unarmed adversaries from within - while they are watching it all happen from without. They see us rotting out from within - any fear factor of those from without goes away.

   I am glad I waited the extra week to publish this final item in our foreign policy series. I needed some verification that China was intending to ramp up its aggression. But I will still not speculate on how, exactly, they intend to do that. Trying to second guess Chinese intentions is a matter that many experts still cannot master in seven years of study. So, I will not use just the extra 7 days to try to do that myself.

   But it is going to be both ugly and needless – a less frivolous Administration could have made it much less likely to happen. So … our new series of articles begins next week on Thursday:

   The Topic of next week’s New Series – Frivolous: The Biden Administration in a Nutshell



   Masking! A Politically Correct Security Blanket? Do you really think this is making us safer and healthier? See below and join the conversation:

I don-t feel comfortable without my mask anymore. Is this a form of PTSD?



  The delay is so that I can mull over some disturbing news. This last of the foreign policy series will be on China but I am working in some new information: there is a marked rise in concern about new Chinese aggressive intentions. I will have an updated blurb on China as soon as possible.



  I will just let you get to the link: we may finally have it. Someone caught in the act of tampering with the Coronavirus databases. Are we still just Pro-Trump crackpots?

Caught live: right out on the Internet



  It was a well put statement: Biden is engaging the Russians in “frivolous” matters (climate change and other matters that are no true security threat.) During the latest security conference, he also engaged NATO in a critical, high stakes matter of a paramount world interest …. “gender fluidity”? Well, pardon my America First attitude but I could really give a rat’s buns about how Angela Merkel (the German Chancellor) feels about men decked out in women’s clothing. And if she wants to change gender roles with her husband, she is free to have at it. But what about security issues – at a security conference?

  I have previously stated that there are four main issues of concern on our foreign policy front. We have dealt with the first two: Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Our third one is about the recent Arab countries that have given diplomatic recognition to Israel. And about doing something non-frivolous with our foreign policy: helping them to build on their economic, diplomatic and security relations with Israel. For Iran has just thrown down the gauntlet.

  They have just ‘elected’ a new government. And their first public communique was to do the verbal equivalent of a pistol whipping to anything about moderation - or being willing to negotiate. Their armed forces, their foreign policy and – most importantly – their desires for an atomic bomb are all strictly a matter of their “sovereign rights”.

   And about even having negotiations? Certainly, after we unconditionally drop all sanctions and impediments that we currently have against them. Then they will be happy to have ‘discussions’ only afterwards. So why in the blank has not there been a full court press by our foreign policy team – from Day One – on just how to coordinate our activities against this type of a new government?

   It was obvious such a government was on its way in. Iran no longer has any real surprises in who gets elected – with what little is still left of its electoral politics. So why has there been no follow-up by the new Administration? With the new Arab countries that are trying to normalize relations with the State of Israel?

  And just what do they have to do to get the Biden Administration off of its butt - and to start securing the new alliances that may very well be needed up ahead. Well …. I hope they understand that I am only spit balling it here. Maybe they could just suggest that they are willing to be a little broader minded on ‘gender fluidity’? If they can get a meeting with Biden? I am not saying that they should actually mean it of course – but that just seems to be the level at which this new Administration works.

  Granted this approach might violate a few dozen tenets of their Islamic faith. But, hey, with this Administration maybe you need to be prepared to wing it a little bit once in a while???


Just kidding ... to all of my Islamic friends: tell him where to go with his frivolous pursuits.


  This Quora submittal highlights just how terrible the indoctrination of our children has become. Read it and get more involved:

The Indoctrination of our Children



   We have a Kamala Harris who has even exhausted the patience of CNN. And we have a Joe Biden who is still being protected by CNN - but will eventually have the game be up anyway. They are trying to minimize the coverage of his interrupting his own presidential address - to come on to a six-year-old girl. But they cannot stop things like that from continuing to happen; eventually the game will be up even if they do not lose patience with him (like they have with Kamala).

   But the worst trait for foreign policy was the point we raised last week. Even when Biden was a whole person, he was still a capitulator. Though he was, in fact, kindly and attempted to be decent in many ways he was still never able to handle much pressure even during his whole periods. BUT if this trait manifests itself in our dealings with Iran it could well bring down the Third Middle East War. This could be an absolutely devastating event – but it is totally preventable.


   In the mid 1980’s they thought that a modern U.S. Navy couldn’t see as well after the sun went down. Their plan? Send out dozens of tiny motorboats with little bombs on them to do damage to the U.S. Navy. But it would be done quote “under the cover of darkness”. And (under this cover of darkness) we would be just as vulnerable as any other person - and they could destroy a giant superpower with just a few magnificent men and their boating machines! (They thought).

  When this (surprise!) did not work out – and whatever was left of any their naval capabilities got its drawers blown out of the waters – they did a distinctly Iranian trait that still continues to this day. They broadcast the notion that they still had to do a for-show one more strike – and then if no one struck back (so they could have the last strike) – then they would stop. And it actually happened that way; they did a pro forma tit for tat and then slunk away.

  This is also what happened when Trump did a brilliant retaliation against their Military Hero and leader. They eventually fired back an ineffective strike that killed no soldiers – but that still gave them the last word in the argument. Apparently, if their bluster ever backfires, they will capitulate - but in exchange for being given the last word of the argument. Thus, they are a manageable threat.


  The strike itself was very telling. Their main General and war hero was trying to act like he was hands off on some of the latest provocations. The face of the operations was some small fry radical that took credit for everything and tried to look like he was running the show. But remember what happened next? The instant the General got to the airport (and he was right next to his small fry radical friend) – they both got popped with a missile strike! And timed that perfectly??? Pretty amazing timing.

  Do you remember one of their last major experiments – that literally blew up in their faces? They seem to be a high-quality cadre of scientists – but that still seem to have a penchant for blowing themselves up when they get into a major experimental mode. And Trump’s sneering “So sorry to hear about what happened in your latest experiment”? We have a lot more control over the situation than the Iranians realize.


  This, in fact, the main impetus for the rush of Arab States recognizing Israel. They are finally having the sense to let their fear of radicalism be more important to them than their hatred of the Jews. It is always good to see people (with a tendency for inflamed sentiments) learning how to become more pragmatic. But what if we still capitulate anyways?

  This is how the few assets, that the Iranians do have, could still come to destabilize the region. They do not have an overwhelming strength of forces but have more than enough assets to destabilize countries throughout the region. They toppled the pro-American government of Yemen, they have weak states like Somalia, Libya and others to target. But the ultimate matter is the 800 gorilla in the room: the atomic bomb.

   Ultimately, to stop this, the Israelis will strike with or without us (and correctly so). If they have to do a solo strike, the consequences could be a bloodbath. Israel alone can easily defeat the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but they cannot stop the Iranians from doing a scorched earth policy of virtually destroying the region as they are being taken down.

   They will shut the flow of oil down; they will have an endless supply of SCUDs to shower the area like rain with. They have Hamas, Hezbollah and other proxy forces that will light up the area as a final bonfire against the ‘Zionists’, etc. It won’t change their ultimate defeat but it will still turn the entire area into a tinder box. And this is a totally unnecessary outcome.

  For with a united front, the Iranians will simply continue to strangle in their isolation – and be severely inhibited in how much mischief they can do. And if a strike does wind up being called for? A combined force of the U.S., the Israelis and our regional allies could strike decisively enough to nip most of Iran’s scorched earth antics before they could total out the region. Out of all of our current hot spots, Iran is the spot where capitulation will come at the highest possible price.

   And the stated policy, so far, is acceptable. To his credit, our current Secretary of State did not give Iran the all-clear to have their normalization agreement get put back into place. The current administration disliked Trump ending it and are against what he did but there is, so far, still a bow to common sense. That does not mean that doing a total reset (back into the previous arrangement) is necessarily a good idea. Up to this point, the Iranians are being given a refusal on that until they make appropriate changes.

   BUT the devil is in the details. Will Biden have the will to hold out for real demands on their behavior? Will he buck his radical, anti-Israel wing of his party? When things get to a point of brinksmanship (which the Iranians will do) will he have what it takes to not buckle? His past is all wrong on this whole matter – let’s hope it won’t stay that way. Failure (which will only happen if we cave in) is not an option.



  This Quora submittal highlights what is (probably) the ultimate example of the Law of Unintended Consequences:

I don't feel comfortable without my mask anymore



   Sorry for the hiatus from where we were supposed to go. In the last foreign policy article, I had to reference who we are now stuck with at the top. And in just this hiatus of the last couple of weeks, we have seen this situation in a new and even worse light than ever.

   On the Joe Biden front: Joe Biden was actually in the middle of a Presidential address to a group of Veterans. He then stopped in the middle of his address so that he could come on to a six-year-old girl in the audience:

  “Joe Biden looks at a little girl in the audience, the daughter of a veteran, and says "I love those barrettes in your hair. Man, I’ll tell you what, look at her she looks like she's 19 years old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed."

   This behavior is even spelled out in medical books as a part of dementia:

“As dementia slowly robs self-awareness, the person becomes less inhibited, losing both the memory of how he or she once behaved as well as a sense of social norms. It’s as if an internal filter on what’s polite behavior or not is turned off.”

   I have been accused of talking out of turn by my matter-of-fact way of saying that Biden has Alzheimer’s dementia. After all, I am not a doctor. BUT (like tens of millions of other Americans) I have had a doctor make that official medical pronouncement on someone that I personally know very well. And, like tens of millions of other Americans, I can not help but notice how utterly identical Joe Bidens behavior is - compared to these people that I am personally watching and observing.

  Joe Biden has Alzheimer’s dementia.

  And on the Kamala Harris front: she has come to be seen as a much worse person than ever during just this brief hiatus since we last talked about it. She truly feels entitled to tell Joe Biden “F_ _  _ you, you senile old man.” He told her she was the Border point person and she just ignored him and has still never been to the border. She holds no meetings on Border issues, she has hosted no meetings on Border issues, etc.

  He has also made her his point person on many other issues - and she acts identically on every one of these new ‘appointments’ in the same way. She is truly feeling entitled to tell someone, who is still the President of the United States, “F_ _ _ you, you senile old man.” What kind of person could even cop that type of an attitude?

   A Kamala Harris type of person, of course. And, tragically, Kamala watchers (who have followed her throughout all of her career) are not even surprised by anything they are seeing. This is just more vintage Kamala Harris – a genuinely valueless person who can almost be described in Biblical terms: as an unjust person who “feared not God, neither had he regard for any man.”

  And now these two are our executive team for all of our foreign policy matters.

  So … in a recent Quora Forum, we also gave some history about another possible problem. This is how radical domestic politics can also affect foreign policy as well as domestic policy. That is our central point in this new blurb on foreign policy. But first: there are four main areas of concern for foreign policy right now:

1) Iraq/Afghanistan

2) Iran

3) Capitalizing on our Middle East gains and most important of all -  

4) China is our existential threat and enemy. Not our competitor, not ‘a’ threat. They are our full-blown enemy and are the current most existential threat to our national security.

   These are the four most crucial foreign policy issues at present. And we will do number one this week because it is a prime example of this week’s talking point: how domestic radicals can alter  foreign as well as domestic policy.

   To begin with, I must make a confession. I agree with Trump 100% on his basic American values stances, 90% on his economics and 80% on his foreign policy.

   But this is my one departure point with him on foreign policy: he was, in my opinion, too knee jerkishly non-interventionist. (I have nothing against a wiser attitude about interventions - but one simply cannot get into any type of a knee jerkish mode). I also feel that he was slightly too indiscriminate about the U.S. out of everywhere - just because we would prefer that our troops be at home. This is the 20% of it I did not agree with.

   So, actually, I agreed with Biden more than Trump on the Afghanistan troop withdrawals. But I have also not agreed with our war strategy - for how to use our troops there - since something called Operation Anaconda. Up until that time, we had less than a few hundred actual troops on the ground, but we had the Taliban continuously on the run. We did this by continuously being on the attack with Green Berets pinpointing massive firepower bombardment every time that they coalesced into any significant type of a fighting force.

   But if they were to split up and try to attack as small units then we used the Green Berets for reconnaissance, intelligence collection and the use of close-up fighting operations to keep breaking them down. Kill them massively and at once through the one strategy. Or kill them by a nonstop track down through another strategy. And all with less than a few hundred actual troops on the ground. And this was what actually worked.

   Thus, my problems were not with the troops being there - but with the wrong strategy for their use. And the second breakdown of our strategy: negotiating with the Taliban. The Taliban is identical in every way with ISIS, Al-Qaeda and etc. They are something to simply destroy - not to ever negotiate with. We should have stayed with our original war fighting strategy and continued it until we killed every person who identified himself with the Taliban.

   But this would still have called for the more moderate course of not doing “All out. We want to bring our boys home just because we like them better to be at home.” And done in a knee jerk way. Now Biden could have wound up doing this because he favored them still being there as  some type of a small reserve force.

  But this is why I, ultimately, still agree with 0% of the Biden foreign policy - even though I just said that there was something where they were right while I think Trump might have been wrong. This is not as contradictory as you might think: because they decided not to follow their own policy. Instead, Biden is now doing the Gutless, Empty Suit act of his predecessor, Obama.

  He did the worst foreign policy move possible. He believed in keeping some troops there but then, in plain sight of our adversaries, he capitulated to the Hard Left of his Democrat Party. Namely, the part of the Democrat party that wanted the knee jerkish “All Out, All Right Now” policy.

   It is not even possible to do a worse foreign policy move than to capitulate to unarmed political activists – while your armed foreign enemies are observing you doing so. Biden just threw in with the “All Out, All Right Now” crowd to be a gutless, empty suit. And sometimes the why of what you are doing can be an even worse threat to our future national security than the what.

   Even if you wanted him to pull out all of the troops (as some Trumpites do) you still should not want him to do it for the reason of being a GES. (Gutless Empty Suit). And to be one while our adversaries are all watching it happen. So, to conclude, Trump did not ‘incite’ any mobs to storm our Capitol. But if we do just a few more of these GES maneuvers then Biden may well wind up inciting China, Russia, the Iranians, the North Koreans, et al. to start storming our national Capitol. Poorly and amateurly played, Joe and Kamala!

Next Week: Iran policy



  Back to a more hot button issue (or issues, even):

Should an 18 year old be able to protect themselves with a firearm?



   Well … now things are really getting interesting – and fast. I had three different national databases that I have looked at throughout this epidemic:

     1) The it went into full frenzy mode as things are finally winding down. It jacked the numbers all the way back up to the levels of last year! One day had 900+ deaths, the next 1100+ deaths and the next 1500+ deaths – and going up again as though we were right back to the beginning of the virus outbreak from a year ago.

   But then: a) it erased all its numbers going back for several days b) made them align with a Worldometer database and then c) never referenced what they did or why they did it. But there is yet still more: it went totally offline for several days after this before finally coming back.

     2) The Worldometer database: it has acted in the classic way. Now that real cases are vanishing the creation of the fake cases is finally slowing down with it. Saturday and Tuesday are collapsing toward the low levels now along with the Sunday and Mondays. The artificially induced surge level is rapidly having to slow down and it appears to be doing the final running out of steam. So now Worldometer and are back in sync.

     3) The WHO database: it is now totally out of sync with all databases – even in its weird way of having comparable numbers - but two days later than elsewhere. This happened when the initially overshot the runway – and the WHO numbers stayed in line with them. But now that the has re-shifted itself over to get in sync  Worldometer? That now leaves the WHO numbers with no linkage of any kind anymore to anything. And this is how three national databases – that are all supposed to be real time collections of the exact same numbers - are supposed to work? Which one of the three is working the most ‘scientifically’?

   Then there are the three different main statistics that I have been consistently pursuing:

     1) The death tallies. I have described that situation fairly well from the above points. So, let us go to the next two …

     2) The cases tallies. There is a complete disintegration here also on the various databases. The had the numbers going all the way down to just over 4,000 cases for the whole country. And then went offline for the next few days after that, boosted the numbers back up to over 10,000 per day (to get in line with the others) and … still has the Sunday/Monday effect of the repeating number sequences.

   But how does that sound for really ‘scientific’ records keeping. You get stats that place it at near burn out levels, it is at odds with other stats so … you shut down for a few days and then re-write them back up higher again. And with no announcement that you have done so and with no explanation. That is science????

     3) The hospitalizations. Much weird behavior here also – the Atlantic Monthly just suddenly quit doing them. No explanation: just a sudden announcement “We quit”. This leaves just the CDC left in the game – and they are just making a complete game out of it! They still have a holdout of hospitalizations that will (apparently) never leave us.

   But there is that caveat. Their own page says that being hospitalized with Covid will be deemed as being hospitalized from Covid. And that is right there on their own page!!! Next, it takes two weeks plus for them to finalize their numbers. To wit:

   They wait three days to report the hospitalization totals for each day. Reasonable, actually. Make sure you have had the chance to collect all the records before issuing your tabulation. Except that … after posting the tabulation they will then boost that same tabulation for that same day upward on the next day. And then boost that same day and tabulation up again on the next day, and the next day and the next day for up to two weeks of daily boosting the same  hospitalization number. That is science??

    This is strictly a boat load of it. The corona stats are now (and have always been) just one Grade A screw-up. So, I guess we can expect it to end on that note also. At least they are finally close to ending – and goodbye to the crew that produced this fiasco. Good riddance to bad rubbish.



   I will get started on foreign policy next week. I must do a breakout from the normal: it looks like they may have to finally stop screwing around with the coronavirus statistics. More on this when I get back to it; but here is how it all began:

   I started do a daily following of the coronavirus statistics for a totally non-ideological set of reasons. I was alarmed at the increasing death rates as people kept worrying about protecting themselves - but not worrying enough about protecting the elder care facilities. Therefore, I started doing a daily watch of the corona stats.

   Secondly, because I am a retired civil engineer/surveyor I am mathematically inclined. Once I started doing the daily observances, I also started doing my own calculations on when the peak was expected to happen -  among other things. This is what led to some of the things I have previously talked about:

   “I followed the death tallies daily, watched the the cases rise less and less steeply and just when it was about to peak on the last 7th of April - and then start it’s natural law decline back down - we (supposedly) got the wham! effect. Instead of being given the normal logical numbers on that April the 7th, we were greeted by numbers purporting a several hundred death surge on a single morning. And - immediately after being given these questionable numbers - we got the bizarre phenomenon (that I have talked about in other writings) that I have called Sunday/Monday.

   This is where every week has the same weekly number sequence that repeats the same way every week - with Sunday always being the low day. This number sequence does not happen in other countries’ statistics. And it only happened here when the normal curve line for the death tallies (supposedly?) did an instant blow up on April the 7th of last year (and for no accountable reason.)

   Furthermore: I have the exact date that the phantom numbers first appeared, April the 7th in 2020. I have tracked their progress throughout the entire epidemic since: the entire world had a near total breather from the virus after July of last year - and so did we! Except for the several hundred phantom numbers that started in April; if you subtract the several hundred phantom numbers for our post July numbers then we also would have had the same breather that every other country in the world also had.

    This answer is telling you how I am tracking it right now. Strict arithmetic shows that we no longer have enough of a vulnerable population and epidemic to generate more than 100 to 200 deaths per day. And we would not even have numbers showing otherwise - except for those same several hundred phantom numbers that started on that same date of April 7, 2020.

   The final part of the story regarding death tallies: I did my own firsthand observations and noticed the troubling events of April 7 - but still formed no conclusions. I spent the next several weeks firsthand observing the events becoming a repeat pattern - but still formed no conclusions. I instead hired multiple statisticians to tell me whether I was (or was not) really seeing what I thought that I was seeing.

   It is only when they confirmed that 1) yes, I really was seeing what I thought I was seeing and that 2) no, I should not be seeing what I was seeing (unless somebody was doing something inappropriate) that I then formed my first conclusions. Namely, that I really was seeing what I thought that I was seeing, I really should not have been seeing it unless someone was acting inappropriately with the records - and I therefore concluded that someone was behaving inappropriately with the records. So would any of the ‘scientifics’ and the ‘data-drivens’ want to tell me what, exactly, I did wrong with my scientific method?”

   But there is a little more that I failed to mention. I still have no idea what my primary statistician’s views are on American politics. He lives abroad, was selected for me by talent scouts (who were never brought into the loop about the potential politics involved) - and he has never talked about his political feelings. Also, I have never asked. In short, unlike the flunky media who cherry picks their experts to back up their already decided upon narratives, mine was selected by a double-blind process.

   So, again, would any of the ‘scientifics’ and the ‘data-drivens’ want to tell me what, exactly, I did wrong with my scientific methods?

   This is the back story on how we wound up where we are at today. Now, as to what has been happening since then:

      1) There is some type of a real, true number somewhere in the system

      2) But this is then subjected to some type of an algorithm that inflates the numbers to about twice the normal levels during every midweek. And then crashes then back down again on every Sunday/Monday. This is a precisely done pattern that has repeatedly itself in a precise way for over 60 weeks in a row. I have simply referred to this phenomenon as The Process.

     3) However, this has led to the occasional slowing down of The Process. Because there is still some connection to real numbers something happens when the real number of cases gets exceptionally low. The Process seems to gradually run out of steam.

   What happens at that point is that the low days (Sunday/Monday) are still always the same low  days. Also, there are still never any days where a low day will fall in between two high days (or where a high day will fall in between two low days). BUT the days on the other side of Sunday/Monday will start to gradually break down along the following lines –

   Saturdays will start to collapse first to the same levels as Sundays and Mondays - eventually creating a third low day. Next, Tuesdays will start to collapse to lower levels which would, eventually, make for a fourth low day in one week. Also, the surge numbers will be start getting smaller as you have only three days left that are still artificially surging.

   It has gotten close to this point before, but it appears it will finally go all the way this time. That is, to eventually have the Wednesdays, Fridays and – eventually - Thursdays (as the final holdout day for inflated numbers) all eventually collapse down to the same numbers as the rest of the week. Thus, the inflated numbers gambit will finally have run of steam and will no longer be creating artificially high numbers for the coronavirus.

  Because this is a fluid situation, I will resume having a Saturday Roundup of the coronavirus tallies – along with explanations for what is still happening on this front. Thank you for your time from the normal reading assignments.

Next Week: back to the planned articles on foreign policy



  A little bit of advice about what is coming: this is not a particularly hot button issue in this Quora offering. But for a reason: I spent a series of 3 weeks recently get people up to speed about economics. And especially as it may relate to a Biden Administration. Last week I stated the general problem that you will find in their foreign policy issues. 

 This Quora offering shows how radical left politics at home can affect foreign policy abroad. It has happened before - and I believe it will be a continuing problem for the days ahead with Joe Biden. Follow the link below for something of a history lesson, a blast from our past and an example of what I am talking about: radical leftism imposing itself into both foreign and domestic policy -

Did Spain under Franco have free healthcare?


   And so now we are getting torn apart abroad – as well as at home. So, I guess it is time for me to talk about foreign policy. (A little reluctantly since it tends to be a yawner with a lot of people). However, it will be anything but a yawner with the current administration in charge.

   We have a disabled dementia case at the top and all the other foreign leaders know it. And this is where things will get livelier about foreign policy than it has been for a long time. For CNN and MSDNC (they call themselves MSNBC, but I agree with the critics – MSDNC is the correct name for their news channel) didn't think one important thing through before carrying Joe Biden over the finish line. They can flim-flam people here at home but not abroad. For some examples:

   1) There are any number of people here at home that will defend Big Business interests getting to practice - and enforce - political censorship. Thus, the flunky media does have some influence powers here at home - but not abroad. For every democratically elected administration in the Western world has spoken with alarm about how America has an almost dictatorial level of censorship of views. And we are talking about governments left, right and center – no one abroad is amused by business tycoons deciding what democratically elected leaders will be allowed to speak and which ones will not. Whatever the media BS campaign has accomplished here at home on these issues it has accomplished nothing with the rest of the world.

   2) The same with our 'woke' movement. There are a number of people that actually seem to take being 'woke' seriously - here at home. Thus, the flunky media does have a number of acolytes here at home that it can influence - but not 'over there'. All countries abroad are aware of our ‘woke’ movement – and it is met with alarm rather than applause. They see the leader of the Free World (America) doing an unravelling. And yes I regard their perceptions - not being in thrall of our Big Media cliques as being more accurate than the people that they have duped here in America.

   3) In short, we are just making total butts out of ourselves abroad with our new brand of dysfunctional politics. And none of these foreigners are being flimflammed by our orchestrated media efforts that seem (somewhat) able to flim-flam us - but not them.

   Worse, and more to the point about our foreign policy, they especially cannot flim-flam the intelligence arms of these foreign governments. All foreign leaders are way more informed about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris than 99 3/4% of the American public is. And they are not impressed by what they see.

   We have talked about the person at the top (Biden) and how there is no Joe Biden. But foreign leaders are also aware of what makes up a Kamala Harris. And how (even absent the dementia) there is truly little more to her either. She is the one I have talked about earlier: the one that did a quest for the perfect buzzword to base an entire election campaign on (and that crapped out completely – even with most Democrats).

  Is that her plan if she must act as a surrogate for Biden? Is she going to have better luck coming up with the perfect catch phrase that will result in world peace? And that will wow all the foreign leaders about her capabilities?

  But there is an important point here: if that does not work (and it will not) she is not going to be able to call up CNN or MSDNC to flim-flam the foreign leaders in the same way that they did a full court press to flim-flam the American public. Not going to happen: foreign leaders have their own networks for information to know what’s what and they have skilled people who really know what they are doing at analysis work. And they probably have more IQ points than all the flunky media types in America have all combined.

    Plus, they do not give a rat’s buns about the media build-up of our current American leaders anyway. If Kamala wants to try bringing in a TV set during her meetings with world leaders (so they can tune in to CNN to get treated to the suck-ups about her) that is her right. But I doubt that they will be particularly interested in the idea. And I know with a certainty that the CNN suck-up blurbs for her will not work on any of them anyway.

   So, what is going to be her next move? When she must have something for real on the ball – and is in a room full of people who are not a part of our dysfunctional political processes? And therefore haven't been bull what-not'ed by any of it? Where is she suddenly supposed to pull up her substance from?

  Thus (and the foreign leaders all know this) we have the person at the #1 spot who no longer has anything there. And we have a person at the #2 spot who never had anything there. So how are they even going to be able to deal with us at all?

  This is why more and more foreign leaders are simply not bothering to deal with us at all. China has not even responded to doing meetings with our people – it is like we are someone who can now be ignored. And we can be - and they know that. So, great job there media moguls: you chumped enough American citizens to prop up one total airhead and one total dementia case. But since your reach does not extend abroad: how do you expect to chump the foreign leaders so that we can still have a successful foreign policy?

  I guess that is the problem when your sole fixation in life is to gut hate a President Trump: apparently, you just did not think that many chess moves ahead.



  I have just come across one of the best finds I have had in years - and it is someone who is an ATHEIST!!!  He is that rare person who will try to stay strictly analytical - and can even agree with religionists (like myself) on some things in spite of the seemingly impossible divide. Follow my Quora answer below - and his comments that were also a part of it. You will see what I mean.

   What can we do to improve the USAs low literacy rate that costs us money in terms of crime and healthcare costs?


  You might even want to follow his writings - they are often quite good. So even in spite of the wide gap on religion he is a good find. And GOD WILLING (pardon me, Warren) he will stay a part of Quora for some time.



   But I swear it, it is not my fault!!! Everything that comes out of the Party of Pelosi is destined to be complicated. Remember how you just could not get a straight Covid relief bill. She did not even disguise it either … “we need to leverage things”. Everything was always about ‘leveraging’ things. You cannot get a clean, rational Infrastructure Bill either. It is, well, even more complicated.

   The best way that I can put it is that it fractures out into not just one, but three, totally different issues. First, there is the fact that you cannot trust the Infrastructure Bill (big surprise???). But with a party that now has both Pelosi and Biden (being puppet mastered by Kamala Harris) it really gets complicated. So, there is also an endless ‘racial equity’ component now in it – that you also cannot put any trust in. But lastly, there is now the issue that, under no circumstances, do you ever want to legalize drugs.

   I will start with the last item first. Mayor Pete (Pete Buttigieg) is now the Secretary of Transportation – and is spear heading the Infrastructure Bill. If you have ever listened to him speak it makes an airtight case against drug legalization. He advocates, as policy, that all drugs should be legalized. He apparently incorporates this stance into his personal life also  - as evidenced by his every speech.

   His vocabulary and sentence structuring do suggest a Rhodes scholar type of an intellect. But it is the way that he word salads them together – and with (at a minimum) an opaque meaning (if any meaning at all). He has just always felt to me like a Rhodes scholar – but one who makes all his speeches while he is stoned to the gills on some really great drugs. And if one still has doubts, then his conclusions (that he ultimately comes to) will remove all these doubts. It is a matter of record that he advocates legalizing all drugs. While his speaking style seems to demonstrate he is someone who also practices his convictions (and very thoroughly so) in his own life.

   I will get back to the matter of drug legalizations at the end of the blurb. But now to the easiest of the three issues: you cannot trust the Infrastructure Bill. You cannot trust the Infrastructure Bill for the same reason that you cannot trust any bill anymore. Thus, my suggested budget reform: bills currently come out with a title of, say, HR 1125 – which stands for House Resolution 1125. And there is the corresponding SR 1125 – which stands for Senate Resolution 1125. My proposal is that both types of bills get passed, and ratified into law, as, say, a GB 1125. With the GB label replacing the current HR and SR labels.

  This would stand for Grab Bag 1125. Maybe we cannot show any morality in how we treat other people’s money. But can we at least be a little more transparent about our immorality? In the hopes that it will finally encourage someone to change?

   Now we come to the ‘racial equity’ stuff. Did you know that we have systemically racist infrastructure? I am not making this up; this is a new Joe Biden initiative – getting rid of the systemic racism in our highway construction. And Mayor Pete’s comments: that it is right into the DNA of our infrastructure (the systemic racism, that is).

   What the whatnot??? An example, please? But it just looks even sillier still when you look at an actual example. There was an overhead highway built in an African American community. It converted the area under the highway for a community party area – tailgate parties and other socializing were done there. The highway itself served this community – but it was still racism. Why?

   Because Mayor Pete (and Biden) decided that it somehow cut the community in half just through its’ presence there. And they were going to tear it the heck down because of its ‘racist’ past. All of which took the involved African American community completely by surprise – since the (supposed) racist-ness of its past was all news to them!

   And did they even like the idea? Not only “No” but “Hell No”. The proposal came across just as much half whacked (to them) as it would come across to any of the rest of us. And was this Mayor Pete’s systemic racism in our infrastructure??? And how it is right into these asphalt highways very DNA???

   Like that piece of asphalt freeway in Topeka, Kansas that only causes traffic accidents to Asian American drivers. Or that bridge that only collapses in on Black motorists in its racist attempts to kill them. And don’t you hear about it all the time – all those strips of road that only cause deaths and injuries to drivers of Hispanic descent?

   Well, you do not – and neither do I. (Spoiler alert: and it is because there is no such thing). So, what possible lunatic justification is there for the latest Mayor Pete spiel – and that is supported by Joe Biden? There is, obviously, none.

   So, there you have it when politics is now dominated by the party of Pelosi - and has a dementia disabled Joe Biden at the top of the ticket. You start with an infrastructure bill and you wind up with three totally different issues:

    1) You cannot trust the bill itself. Even the flunky media admits that no more than 1/3 of it has anything to do with actual infrastructure.

    2) You cannot trust the new ‘equity’ monitors. Why should you? When even the people they were trying to help think that they are crazy?

    3) And if you still think that legalizing drugs is a good idea after listening to a Pete Buttigieg speech then you are probably a drug burnout case yourself. I cannot imagine any other type of person who would not be convinced. But I am sure that most people – after listening to just one Mayor Pete speech (and definitely no more than two) will come totally over to my point of view. Under no circumstances should we even consider the legalization of drugs!



This week's Quora entree goes into a wedge issue with no simple answers. Those of us who are blue collar conservatives (or just liberals-with-sanity) need to stop being afraid to mix it up with others in these areas. See below:

If white people think we live in such a racially equal society why are they so afraid of someday becoming the minority?



   So, we are at the final episode as the Textbook Economist sinks deeper and deeper into his textbook - and falls farther and farther away from actual reality. Now he does the ultimate “Oops” Factor: what if over half of the economy is already taken over by the government? But the economic textbooks assume that we live in a free market economy.

   That is, one where everything processes itself out in a natural ripple effect. But what if over half of it has been hijacked into a command styled economy? This is where a dollar, walking itself through its natural processes, has over 50% of itself intercepted by someone from the government. It is then blocked from doing whatever it had in mind - and is then reversed by a command from someone in the government to go off in another direction? Do you still get the same ripple effect?

   Picture an example of what naturally comes to mind when we think of a ripple effect – the rock thrown in the pond. The whole pond is wide open, and you have the entire expanse for the ripple to go out to. This is one Day One.

   On Day Two: ten percent of the pond has been leveed off from the rest of it. There is 90% of the pond available to you while 10% now is not. Do you get 100% of the same ripple effect when you toss in the rock into a 90% area of what was there before?

   On Day Three: twenty percent of the pond has been leveed off from the rest of it. Day Four: thirty percent has been leveed off from the rest of it. We eventually get to where half of the pond is still available to the effect of our rock while half is not.

   So … are we still going to keep getting 100% of the same ripple effect? This is a simplified picture of the problem. Once you have taken half of the economy out of the picture you do not keep getting 100% of the same ripple effects - from tossing the same rock into the (now) half of a  pond.

   But there are also technical factors involved. Traditional economics says that there is a 3 to 1 multiplier for each dollar spent – and that this comes from a mathematics function. But this makes matters worse for those who like walling off huge chunks of the economy - to become a part of the new command economy run by the government.

   Because: if you run $1 through this math function you do get the $3 effect. But if, for example, you run $0.75 through it (what you would have if ¼ of the economy is now out of play: you have just 75 cents on the dollar to actually work with) you are down to just a $2 effect. It does not necessarily work in a strictly linear function. That is, if a quarter of the economy is taken out of the ripple process, more than just a quarter of the ripple effect could be lost.

   Now, again, the economics profession uses a math function (an infinite series is what it is called) for their number. And we are down to having only 50 cents on the dollar available for this ripple effect in our actual economy. And what happens at the halfway point (you are now running only $0.50 through this math function)? It is that it is down to just a $1 for $1 effect.

   And what about the Buttinski Effect – talked about earlier? Where half the dollars involved go through the command economy process rather than a marketplace one? That is, the dollar is intercepted by a government official, is given its “Halt or we’ll shoot” order - and is then redirected to go elsewhere. Is this process 100% for free? That there is no net cost to this process - that might also syphon off some of the normal economic activity that might have otherwise occurred? The only thing that you can know for sure is that nothing about this is talked about in the economics textbooks.

   So, why not shoot the works and even make up some of our own verbiage for this process? I am introducing the concept of the Carburation Point for stimulus programs. Do you recall what can happen if you have too lean a gas intake to your automobile? Well, you might then set up the carburator to feed you more gas. And, since this will get the car running better, what if we then get hoodwinked into the textbook economics principle that if a little bit is good then a lot is better?

   So … we are just feeding it more and more gas  - just because we 'know' that that will always increase the performance – and no one has ever taught us what a flooded engine is. As the engine starts lugging down, we desperately need to keep doing it more(?) since we now need the stimulus effect even more. And, of course, we will keep needing (or think that we keep needing) the stimulus effect further and further as the engine gets more and more flooded.

   The Carburation Point. Can there be a point where a little being good does not mean that a lot will be better? At some point, could you be better off to lean things back out again in the hopes of hitting the right balance? And why shouldn’t this apply to government spending? We have seen how the more of the economy you corral off to the government, the less of a ripple effect you get. And that this slowdown might well increase geometrically as you keep pushing the limits more and more.

   Also, common sense says that the entire process of making a dollar go Command Economy is costly as an extra expense in the process. Is it possible that it’s costliness might even increase geometrically as you keep doing more and more of it? So why isn’t there, say, a Carburation Point for the whole process – where you start to actually lose money every time that you further ‘stimulate’ the economy?

   And we now have this possibility hanging over our heads when money - in the trillions of dollars - is now being put up on the line! But the Textbook Economist never seems to feel the same unease - from reality - that the rest of us might. This is why a Textbook Economist is the second worst threat to the Free Enterprise system.

   The Socialist intentionally kills the Free Enterprise system while the Textbook Economist slowly strangles it to death thinking he is doing it a favor. Well, I hope the Textbook Economists will forgive me for paraphrasing their great God Keynes: In the long run (from both types of economists) we are still all dead. Life could get so much simpler if we just believed in a little more free enterprise.



This week's Quora entree talks about re-assuming control over our lives. It does it, however, on the most necessary institution that there still is. Or ever will be. (And uses Hollywood as one of our current battle lines). See below:

Why is it so that Gina Carano is dismissed for her political leanings whereas actresses like Brie Larson aren't?



   We are now continuing with our story about a textbook economist. They do not understand NET job creation, i.e., why a government jobs program will cost you way more jobs than it will create. (Because it is not specifically talked about in an economics textbook?). We talked about that in Episode One in our economics series.

   Next, they do not understand the NET effect of a government transaction. In the last blurb, we had a textbook economist spend another $20 - but it did nothing to increase the overall amount of money getting spent by everyone. That is, the NET effect of the government action. And, again, an economics textbook does not consider a minus side to spending vs. a plus side and how it (ultimately) NETS out. And so … neither do a lot of textbook economists.

  Will just spending more money really NET you out what you are expecting to have happen? That is what we are considering here. We will consider this through another one of those questions that textbooks do not talk much about.



   Nowhere in an economics textbook does it explore the WHY of people suddenly dropping their spending patterns. It just blithely acts as though it does not matter because more spending from elsewhere will be an automatic fix. But consider three problems with this.



   I raise this point because this is one of the first, and most fundamental, oversights that you will find in every economics textbook. It is the basic question of WHY the consumers and the investors (the C and I folks) each spent $10 less than before. In most things in life, don’t we assume that the best way to reverse an effect is to reverse the cause - that caused it?

   But none of this “First, what is the cause?” analysis is used, on this question, in any economics textbook. But what if – as would normally be the case – a reverse-the-effect-by-reversing-the-cause approach would also do the needed repair? But would do it more efficiently and effectively?



   Also, the standard textbook approach appears to make some naïve assumptions. For example, you are not dealing with the “why” behind things. You are simply doing these things to correct some resulting imbalance with no ultimate game plan in motion.

   They are, effectively, assuming that the “why” question does not even matter – and then they brush right past it. But it does matter for, while individual behavior is very quirky, mass behavior is not. An entire society does not suddenly change their spending patterns, and in a detrimental manner, for absolutely no reason.

   But the leading assumption, in modern economics, is that this mass behavior change (just suddenly leaving money around and refusing to spend it) is just something that happens the way it happens – and why make such a mystery story out of it? Under modern thinking, this mass behavior goes sideways, and all at once - and in such a way that it is now damaging the economy. But why delve more deeply into what is causing it? But we can at least start with a more reasonable answer:



   There are matters have a direct policy relevance. For, example, suppose that people have stopped spending money - simply because they no longer have it to spend? In this case, why not just let everyone have more money straight into their pockets (Tax Less) – and watch them start spending it again? Now that they, once again, will have it to spend?

  Why spend money on just one part of the economy (like, say, a government jobs program) in the hopes that it will ‘trickle down’ (as it were) to everyone and somehow do the miraculous? If, that is, people are simply out a little bit of money for their own pockets? Why not just let them have the money back into their pockets?

   This is called the Tax Less approach to stimulating an ailing economy. You reduce everyone’s tax burden and, thereby, put more money directly back into everyone’s pockets. Couldn’t that be a type of a “more logically focused countermeasure” that I have previously referred to? This, in turn, will now lead back into our story line about that textbook economist who decided to do all the spending for everyone – only to find that it made no difference.

   For, you see, there was more than one party in the room. There was Mr. Consumption (the ‘C’ symbol), and Mr. Investment (the ‘I’ symbol) not just Mr. Government (the ‘G’ symbol). Now what if I already had plans on that $20 that the government grabbed away from me? Sure, he has $20 more to work with but what if I now have $20 less?

  The government (through the efforts of its textbook economist) is on one side of the table spending more money. But what if my plans for that $20 have just gone kaput? Then I will wind up spending $20 less. Thus, the NET effect of the government act is simply going to go back to zero (on the best-case assumptions).

   You cannot simply assume that the government will do a command economy directing of $20 - and that that might not step all over something else that could be getting done with that same money. In effect, all that the government spending may wind up doing is to shift what part of the economy is doing the spending – it is not necessarily going to have the same ripple effect of jump starting more NET spending. The question is, again, about the NET effect of a spending (or some other) government action – something that is not mentioned in the economics textbooks. And thus, often eludes the textbook economist.

   Spend More or Tax Less? These are the two, in a nutshell, types of approaches to economic stimulus. But when you simply ask the right question, essentially, “Why?” (as it relates to the lost $20 example I used earlier) then the Tax Less option should seem to be right.

  But now that we are in the current situation (where we are stupid enough to be talking spending in the trillion-dollar zones) it is bad enough that it might simply be a total waste of time, i.e., it is merely shifting the spending patterns around between people. If time is money (and you are now wasting time with trillions of dollars) isn’t that a lot of money? But what if this type of colossal spending is even an enormous drain of money (when you finally think of it in terms of its' NET effects  – the looking at the whole big picture?) Can we really afford an actual drain of money (rather than just doing a big waste of time with it) - and with literally trillions of dollars? I doubt it.

  But this is exactly the type of a crap shoot that we now call modern economics. For me, this is even a matter with serious moral repercussions – another thing that is not talked about often enough in economics textbooks. And so, in Episode Two, we leave the textbook economist not having much awareness about those type of considerations either.

Spoiler Alert: the behavior just gets worse in next week’s final episode of Tales of the Textbook Economist.



   I am a little reluctant to do what must seem like a pure Hit Piece on someone. But Kamala Harris is the absolute poster child for Identity Politics at it's most absurd. She is so vacuous that she based her entire election campaign on a quest for a magic buzzword. (Literally, she conceived of a repeated word phrase that was supposed to so psychologically grab people that it would get herself elected.) And cover for her terrible personal and political issues. Enough is enough.

Why didnt anyone show up in Oakland CA where Vice President Harris visited for the first time since the election?

  Remember: between her and someone with Alzheimer's Dementia, that makes up our entire Executive Branch! Neither is where they are for anything about their merits. There is literally a Biblical curse that involves the complete stripping of a nations elders and leaders; are we in that much trouble as a nation from committing that much sin? (Don't take the question lightly.)



  Last week, we took a look at the particulars: the latest government's whatnot that is supposed to stimulate the economy. But never does. It is just a matter of economic illiteracy and, of course, an illiteracy of the 'experts'. (Isn't it always?)

   So ... this is a story about the second worst threat to the free enterprise system. The first worst is, of course, the socialist. But the second worst threat to the free enterprise system is something called a textbook economist. Now, yes, you do need to understand everything that is in your economics textbook. Moreover, the purpose of this blurb (and a couple more to follow) is to help the average reader become more economically literate. But you also need another awareness.

   Namely, that there are also real world items that are not always covered by your economics textbooks. It is this basic failure - to keep a grip on each world (the real world and the textbook world) that creates the  ‘textbook’ economist – and a loose cannon on the deck of the economy.

   Now, where does a strictly ‘textbook’ economist often go wrong? It begins right where most of the textbooks also begin. With an ‘obvious’ equation that defines what makes an economy. After a small amount of explanation (that follows), it is obviously true (arithmetically) that the GNP = C + I + G. This is where the GNP, on the one side of the equation, stands for the Gross National Product. This is the total value of all goods and services created by the economy.

   And where, next, you have the phrase “C + I + G” on the other side of the equation. These items are, basically, a list of the ways there are to spend money - on all the goods and services created by the economy. So, the fact that they will always equal each other is certainly true. But how much relevance is there to this truism? As far as analyzing how the economy actually works?

   To study this question, we must first look at the “C+I+G” phrase and what each of these letters stands for. The letters stand for:

       C = consumer spending while

       I = investment spending and, finally

      G = government spending

   Next, we can get into some theoretical examples - just to help move the point along. Assume that the GNP number equals $300 - and that within this $300 you have the following:

      The consumer is spending $100 

      The investment spending is $100 and that, finally

      The government spending also equals $100

   We now have the truism in place. The GNP equals $300 - and the 3 factors that make it up also add up to $300. But here is where much modern economic analysis goes from the obvious to the obviously superficial. Suppose: something changes in the next year and you now see the following numbers:

      The consumer spending has decreased to $90 and

      The investment spending has decreased to $90 while

      The government spending remains at $100

   Now, you re-add up the total of the three items and you will get only $280. So, correctly enough, the Gross National Product or GNP now also equals just $280. So, the economy or GNP has lost a total of $20. But now, says modern analysis (with no real nuances even considered) the solution is also supposed to be obvious.

   It can be defined as the Spend More option to stimulate an ailing economy. The GNP has lost $20 so you simply increase government spending by $20 from $100 to $120. So now the three numbers will, presumably, add back up to $300 again - and it is problem solved!

  But here is where I will lay the matter out for the next Thursday blurb. What actually happened was this:

     1) The government increased its spending from $100 to $120. That is an increase of $20. But

     2) The consumer and the investor cut back their spending by another $20. So that

     3) The total amount of spending was still down by $20 from the original starting point. Nothing (overall) actually changed. This will be explained in the next Thursday blurb. And, of course, be patient, the goal is to help the average reader become more economically literate. We will get there over the next few weeks.



  The absurdity hits lower and lower levels. Someone is caught in the middle of their knife swing and there is still something to debate about the use of deadly force? And about our systemically racist country? Like Hell!




   Some minor problems with Government jobs programs:

      1) they are a fantasy that have never become a reality. They are

      2) a (repeatedly) debunked idea that keeps getting resurrected. And they are

      3) a mathematically and precisely calculated statistic - that they do not work rather than that they do.



  They (government jobs programs) got a bad, not a good, reputation as a part of The New Deal. Granted, an economic program cannot take only six months for it to truly kick in. But if it is even remotely good, it should take a lot less time than, say, six years. Another myth of The Great Depression: just as it started more than two years after the Stock Market Crash (and therefore had nothing to do with that), it continued nearly unabated for many years despite the National Recovery Acts’ government paid for jobs programs. (And, thus, we debunk a second myth: the NRA – National Recovery Act – had very little to do with the national recovery when it actually happened).

   While the general public has never been that tuned in to this debate, economists did tune in to it. And it gave Government jobs programs a (deserved) bad name in the profession. They did not work any better for Barack Obama. But here is a conceded fact by most economists: the Reagan recovery program did work. Even a Peter Krugman, who is one of the main architects of Obama’s government jobs program, has always (passingly) admitted that as well. But the point:

   Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate to fight against - 1% higher than Obama’s. He had double digit inflation to fight simultaneously (and had 21% prime interest rates) while trying to do it. Obama got to use nil prime interest rates and easy money because he had no such simultaneous problems. It is Reagan who had the hardest economic environment to deal with rather than Obama. But the Reagan recovery record kicks the bleep out of Barack Obama’s – and by using diametrically opposed methods.

   Reagan did not use easy money, he decreased spending and relied on tax relief (giving people their own ‘stimulus’ money to work with) as his opposite method to Obama’s. And he got re-elected with a 60% approval rating because of a powerhouse economy. Also, it was one that did an extremely fast turnaround (more than the six months but a lot less than the six years). Thus, I state again: a government jobs program is just another triumph of fantasy over reality.


   By Jimmy Carter’s time, virtually no one considered a government jobs program to be a good idea. When Ted Kennedy proposed it, it was rejected by all mainstream economists of both Parties. Even most of the ‘talking heads’ economists – at that time - did not take it seriously. Other little noticed facts: during that time, every year the AFL-CIO would put out an alternative budget about government jobs programs paid for by taxing the rich. They were always totally ignored by both political parties. Every year the Congressional Black Caucus would do likewise - and get the same reception from both parties.

   So, what happened? Well … Obama is a rock star - and the flunky media’s Pet Anointed One. He came up with an original plan: a government job’s program paid for by taxing the rich! And so ... now it is a for real proposition to take seriously? Why?


   It failed to deliver a quick ‘summer of recovery’ for Obama for the same reason that had been noted about such programs for many decades. Again, there is a two-fold reason Ted Kennedy could not sell it - back those many decades earlier. The two-fold reason: it costs a half a million to dollars to create a government job AND it is well known (and by all economists of all persuasions) that it costs this much. Further, that this is still well known (and by economists of all persuasions) - even while people are now trying to prop up such a well-known farce, fantasy and fakery economics proposal.

   But it only costs half of one hundred thousand dollars for the private sector to create a job. (That is $50K for the private sector vs. $500K per the government jobs program approach). So, per each new government job, you have a net loss of nine jobs. There is the one job you get from the government vs. the ten that you do not get from the private sector - because the money has been re-directed away from them to the government sector.

   And one job (that you get from the government) minus the ten jobs (that you could get with the same amount of money in the private sector) equals a minus nine jobs. All the talk is strictly  about how many jobs were created not how many net jobs were created (or were actually lost). Yet all I am saying here is what was (consistently) pointed out for all those decades between Ted Kennedy and The Anointed One - and by economists of all persuasions: that government jobs tend to simply cost too much and to, thereby, be a net ineffective factor.`

  But wait until we go down the rabbit hole with Green Jobs; already being done in Europe. On the one hand, they are doing about twice as good as the traditional government jobs programs under their initial roll outs. But on the other hand, I am talking about doing twice as good at costing money - even as compared to the traditional jobs program. That is, they are proving to be the full million dollars per each job created - not just half of a million.

  That indicates them to be a minus nineteen in net jobs created per each Green Job government jobs program. So, if you like the way that the traditional government jobs program produces a minus nine in net job creating wait until you see the new minus nineteen version due to be started shortly. Get enough of those jobs created, look at how few jobs will still even be left in the whole world and we could wind with an employment situation that will have us all be pining away for the Great Depression.



   This week's Quora link is not that critical - in and of itself. But look at some of the attitudes to the underlying question, look at the responses to my answer to the underlying question and see if it all does not make you feel uncomfortable as well. I believe that it should.

Is-this-article-about-viruses-correct: Leading-Corona-researchers-admit-that-they-have-no-scientific-proof-for-the-existence-of-a-virus?



   This is the third and final of our Biden at the Border blurbs. The first was the border issue of security. The next blurb described the utter amorality involved in Open Borders. While this one just talks about the economics.

   And … it is confession time!!! With a little twinge of embarrassment but (hopefully) with your forgiveness I have an acknowledgment to make: I was once one of THOSE types of Republicans. That is, the Mainstream Republican perspective of looking at trade, immigration et al. through a one-dimensionally free market perspective. But note what I have admitted to: I do not say that there is anything wrong with the free market perspective. It was merely my one-dimensional free market perspective that was off.

  The first shortcoming involved is that nothing, in the real and actual world, is strictly about economics. Here is just a small subset of problems stemming from Open Borders. And dealing in non-economic aspects first.

  1) (non)-Integration. For a first time, bilingualism became a new norm in the 80’s. Thus, as I have said it before, people gave the impression of coming to America to NOT assimilate. This is hotly contested but setting up a new norm for bilingualism was never a good idea. It still breaks down that sense of unity that used to typify America.

  2) Identity politics. This is another case of our defective politics causing a problem with the immigration – it is not strictly the immigration itself. But it is still one of those things that people in high places has their blinders on over. People who come into America as a part of our new  Identity Politics atmosphere are simply not the same story as our traditional successes at immigration. Our social experiment with the hyphenated American is a disaster – and messing up how well immigration could work is not the only problem that it creates. But that is one of them.

  3) You simply do not get the same quality of immigrants. You must acknowledge that people who know the pitfalls of being in a country illegally – and still do it anyway – are not the same type of people who are willing to play by the rules. And who understand – and are willing to wait for - a long term game where being here legally gives you a better chance at success.

  4) And we have already talked about the bad actors involved. Chaos is simply not an option in today’s world. Also, Open Borders and (relatively) Open Immigration are not necessarily the same thing anyways. Can’t you invite people into your house on a wide-open basis – without it meaning they get to barge in freely and without your even controlling their means, methods and the times of their entry? Common sense simply needs to be used.

  Now, all these things do, ultimately, hurt us economically – even if it is not in a totally direct manner. The way that people think, their values and day to day attitudes, etc.  does make a difference in the way that people will perform in life – economically and otherwise. And, thus, will also affect the country economically and otherwise. But:

  Then there are the more directly economic factors.

     1) Using America as a flop-house - rather than a place to set down roots (and build your own new house here). This is not a frequently argued point but that just shows the problems we have with Textbook Economists: For why does a flop-house mentality (by some immigrants) have such bad economic effects? It is quite easy to see why: suppose every American was to work in America – and then remit 50% of all their earnings to somewhere in Venezuela? Wouldn’t that affect U.S. output in a negative manner?

  The problem is that, because an economics textbook does not specifically cover a situation, then neither do most Textbook Economists. But who is the better for GDP growth – some one who produces the goods, gets paid and then spends his pay here in America? Or someone who produces the goods, gets paid and then remits half of their pay abroad? Which instance will lead to higher GDP growth in America?

  2) And it is still connected to a bigger economic picture. More immigration is good – if you have a 3% unemployment rate. The Trump economy produced a situation where there were more jobs available than there were workers – so more workers from abroad did not do downward pressure on American wages.

  But if we already have flat wages and unemployment then how does bringing in new people from abroad really help the economy? It just creates, in this instance, downward pressure on labor. In short: it is our friends - the Textbook Economists - who are the problem here again. There is no absolutist “Immigration is always good in all possible circumstances - and no matter how you handle your immigration issues.”

  There is nothing wrong with the Economics textbooks but there is always a qualifier that should be understood about any issue: “Under any and all normal circumstances, and all other things being equal, such and such is good for our country.” This applies to all matters – including, of course, immigration.

  But our approach to immigration is anything else but a normal set of circumstances. The process has become so bastardized from the social problems of hyphenated Americans, Identity Politics, the caliber of immigrants simply not being like the ones of yesteryear, giving welfare assistance to immigrants ( a full-on whack job notion – what did the Pilgrims use for food stamps?) These things, along with just the economics involved, does also affect how well immigration works. Thus, is not a broad-brush stroke of “Immigration is always good in all possible circumstances - and no matter how you handle your immigration issues.”

  Nor is there the proverbial “All other things being equal” caveat involved. A flop house does not work the same – economically – as a permit for building a new house (or as the person who does the new house vs. the flop house). And a different overall picture does affect the overall utility of immigration – and depending upon particular situations.

  So, once again, if you were to look at it in a strictly one-dimensional free market way (in line with the Economics textbooks as I, myself, used to do) then “Yes, under any and all normal circumstances, and all other things being equal, immigration is good for the economy.” But an even remotely quick look at the real world around us shows us that this is not the state that we are currently in right now.

Now, considering the mental state of Biden, I would not bother asking whether he is even tuned in to this discussion. But surely, he must have a Council of Economic Advisors (CEA)? “Hey, Joe’s CEA folks! Are you paying attention to any of this?”



Don't assume that I have gone thin-skinned; I haven't. I have (and deliberately so) written very blunt and/or provocative material on a number of occasions. But I am surprised by the poked-by-a-scalding-iron response that one of my recent Quora responses got. As I attempted to write it, it was more of a philosophical piece on how (presumably) helpful relationships can degenerate into dysfunctional ones (and that is a 'ranting' concept???).

The 'rant' then described this process (that does often happen in such instances) and how it works to the detriment of everyone involved. It did not articulate any conspiracies, make any hard-and-fast accusations, etc. On the whole, I assumed it to be one of my more moderate and analytical presentations. But follow the commentary that came from my answer to a question - and then, as always, I say get involved and contribute some of your own answers.




   This is the second of our Biden at the Border blurbs. There will be three of them in total. The first was the border issue of security - and his dropping of the hand-off on this issue from Trump. But there is more than just a lack of competence for comprising our security.

  This article takes us through the utter amorality involved. All parties know about the depraved actors – and their depraved activities - that are taking advantage of the border chaos. So how do we excuse them for still dropping the ball on the border? And off that same political malice that generated the Hate Trump movement? But, first, a reminder of just what we mean by depraved actors and their depraved activities:

  1) Heroin pushers. Anybody here like heroin pushers? Specifically, Black Tar heroin? Mexico is the main importation point for our Black Tar heroin. And the main people doing the running of people across the border are the drug gangs – that cook up the Black Tar heroin. Great job, Pelosi – are you next going to support human slave traders?

  2) Except that she IS doing that also. The border chaos also results in the sex trafficking. Specifically, the conscripting of under-age women from Mexico. And then forcing them to become whores here in the United States of America – the Land of the Free??? Oh, and back to Pelosi again – way to stand up for women’s rights, Nancy. (Also see video link below:)

  3) Unaccompanied minors. This is what galls me the most. Social critics have described us as a society that is becoming incapable of moral outrage. And, tragically, what a prime example this makes. Everyone knows that they get raped, beaten, robbed and victimized all along the way up the border. So … why are not we capable of stating, bluntly and without apology, that anyone connected to this in any way is human garbage.

  To begin with, the parents of these children are complete garbage. And, no, there is not any room for sympathy about “But they are in poverty and/or oppression. We are just dealing with desperate people!” You still do not interpose your children into harm’s way as a solution to your difficulties. Even if, say, you were one of the people who was getting beheaded for your religious beliefs - you still do not put up one of your children as a physical block against the executioner’s blade. Unless that is you are human garbage.

  The coyotes who are left to do the transport for these unattended minors should be regarded as child kidnappers - and should be doing life behind bars upon apprehension. The parents of these children should get a special notification from the U.S. State Department that they are “persona non grata’ in the U.S. And that, if they are apprehended in the U.S., they will also face severe charges that will grant them a long-term rent-free arrangement – in a U.S. prison.

  Finally, all politicians who are still willing to politick on these types of misery – even with the proven problems of unattended minors, sexual trafficking and the enrichment of heroin pushers – should be deemed to be human garbage. And, yes, I deem Ms. Pelosi to be that way. The only reason I do not regard Biden that way is because he has Alzheimer’s dementia and is no longer a party to anything – but merely a figurehead.

   So, what leaves these politicians with no excuses are the obvious changes in the border situation that have occurred throughout the years. In 2001, it was proven that we can no longer allow portions of the world to slip into chaos and anarchy. The turning of Afghanistan into an Al-Qaeda headquarters came out of this country being a failed state. Since then, the most dark and evil people have constantly shown that they know how to exploit situations where there is no order. The border situation (where it has also become another chaos zone) is just one more vcase in point.

  But politicians of both parties know this. No American politician can turn a blind eye to the border crisis unless they are intentionally unconcerned about the type of very evil actors that now run the chaos that exists in this area of the world. And hatred of Donald Trump and/or the average working class traditionally minded person is not a justification to permit such a carnage to continue – and especially to restart it after it had tamed down considerably. But shame on us also: we need more heartfelt and legitimate outrage against any politician that can take their politics to that type of an outrageous level.

  And it was Trump (one of the few politicians who was willing to highlight this issue) who was the unfeeling and inhuman person – as he harangued for being like? Total absurdity!



  Unfortunately, we need to go with the "Or what?" option. People like this are real and deadly serious. We have to take them seriously because they honestly take such things seriously (and even in spite of its clear absurdity). We all need to be more involved in the Quora forum (and others) because people like this really do exist and they really do mean what they say.

  This "Extinction Rebellion" - as best a sane person can understand it - is this nihilistic conviction that we are literally, physically in danger of immediate extinction. And then (at least some of its adherents) are willing to go to the next part of their logical reasoning. If you are in immediate danger of extinction (by what I am doing) then what kinds of things can you justify doing to make me stop it? Quite a bit I would think.

  But don't just shake your head in disbelief - as a conservative often does when confronted with such thinking. Also, don't emulate what the Left does: why don't we just have them all censored so no one can be allowed to think that way? Instead, engage them in the debate and be relentless at getting out your message on the Quora (and other) forums. The link to this question is below:

Why hasn't the Extinction Rebellion taken off in the US?



   This is the first in a series on the ‘handoff’ to Joe Biden. In our final Trump based article we talked about his accomplishments. And in one of our full-length articles, it was mentioned that all the people should want from the Democrats is to let all of the disruptions (and lockdowns) just go away - and let everything return exactly the way that it was before the corona virus:

Vote for Trump!

  So how wise has Biden been (in this regard) now that the issues are being handed off to him? No bear in mind: I have no problems with politics. Let him go ahead and trash Trump - if he would have the sense to still leave things well enough alone – and not fix things that are not broken. But is that the wise course that we are getting from Biden now he has gotten the ‘handoff’ of the issues from the Trump administration?

  On border security the answer is a tragic “No”. He not only trashed Trump for racism, callousness and insensitivity (and, again, I do not mind politics) but he did actually reverse his successful policies as well. And for no reason other than his Trump derangement getting converted into policy - as well as just into politically motivated words. This is where the recent border problems have started.

   As we mentioned in the Trump send-off blurb (The Triumphs and Tragedy of Donald John Trump) he did, ultimately, succeed at pacifying the border - and bringing the respective Mexican governments over onto our side of the issues involved. They accepted “safe, legal and orderly” as a necessary part of our international relations. It ended the downward pressure on wages and helped played a part in working class Americans gaining a whopping $6077 increase in their median household incomes (between 2017 and 2019).

  Meanwhile, the Mexican governments, themselves, are even against Biden's feckless new policies regarding their country. They may not have liked what Trump had to say but right, wrong or indifferent the issues did get hashed out – and in a way that both countries decided could work. Thus, rocking the boat now is not even considered a good move by Mexico – any more than it is considered a good move by most Americans.  

  But Biden and his handlers (or, most likely, strictly his handlers since he is no longer there) could not do the wise course and simply leave bad enough alone. They had their chance at the best of both worlds: keep castigating Trump on his ‘persona’ issues (racist, racist, racist and/or just not ‘presidential’) – while still reaping the benefits of a successful policy that they could have left in place. But they are just not  psychologically incapable of doing so.



  To begin with, the post below is not that much of a stand-out post. What I want the reader to note is just how willing people are to defend censorship as being right and acceptable. Some of the responders to the post acknowledged that only one side of an issue was being allowed into the debate - but defended that practice. See for yourself: 




  I did a write-up on the hospitalization numbers - and how they are proving there is fraud in the corona virus death tallies. However, it is now getting harder and harder to find daily updates on hospitalization rates. Is someone finally noticing this dead giveaway? About the fraudulent accounting of the virus? And are they, therefore, starting to shut down more of the flow of information?

  I don't know but I am putting out a plea to all readers: if you still can still find a source that gives daily, updated hospitalization rates for the virus please bring it to our attention. Below is a prior write-up I did highlighting this issue:


A simple exercise: I have argued that the corona virus deaths are massively inflated and now - as I see it - there is clear proof to be had (one way or the other). The official numbers say that:

1) We have 4 times as many people are dying now than during the July peak period. But that

2) We only have twice as many hospitalizations. So … according to the official numbers

3) The medical doctors are only half as competent now - at saving hospitalized people - as it was several months ago?

So my challenge: go to any medical clinic in the entire U.S. (I will expand on that: Quora has a lot of international followers so make that “go to any medical clinic in the entire world”) and ask any doctor if they feel that this is a reasonable assessment. That, after

1) developing therapeutics that were not even available back then and that after

2) having several more months of “practice makes perfect” that their competence level has dropped by 50%.

Seems simple: Just find one physician - any where in the whole world - who will back up the notion that they are 50% less competent at life saving then they were several months ago. Do that and you get to win the argument: congrats on proving another Trumpite to be a conspiracy nut.

But, if not, then how do you explain the arithmetic? Are non-Trump supporters that much better at arithmetic so that, say, people who have become twice as good at saving lives can still lose 4 times as many people - to a disease that only has twice as many serious cases? As a Trumpite, I can’t make that kind of arithmetic work - is it because I am not as smart???"

End of quote.



  The George Floyd murder trial is about to start. And it is beginning to look like it will be as useless, patronizing and racist as any event you can think of. But none of it is due to any of my doings. Here’s my point of view:

   First, a back story: I am a pro-law enforcement conservative but I do not Kool-Aid drink for any one. While I do believe that none of the police brutality charges are due to “racist, racist, racist” (and that most of the charges are not even true) I still pay attention to all the details. And I will show two incidents where I do not like the way that any of the parties acted.

Looking back at Freddie Gray for a moment …

   He is the person who brought down a bad police reaction on himself by running away (with an associate)  for no reason - and then refusing to tell them what was going on. I do not care for his behavior as the first party involved. He was not the victim of racism but of foolish behavior that will always lead to a bad conclusion.

   But I am also disturbed by the police behavior. Specifically, the way the transport truck, with just him in it (why not ride him in the back of a police car?) had to stop SIX flipping times on the way to the police station. Why in H didn’t they just drive him there and have done with it? Why did they need to stop, start, stop, start and stop, start a half a dozen times?

   While I am not saying that it is the only explanation one is that they would stop the truck, go around back to Gray and ask him “Are you ready to talk to us yet?” And the biggest problem is that there does not seem to be any other logical reason why there had to be six separate stop and restart sessions. But this does not constitute a proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court case.

   So … on this Incident One what should have been done? It is called “Just Do Evidence” rather than just doing “racist, racist, racist …” It has been a standard police technique (for literally thousands of years) that the first order of business is to get all of the potential witnesses separated (before they can influence and/or coach each other) and do a thorough grilling. If they are all telling the truth they will all tell the same story. If they all share different stories then they are all lying. Seems easy but guess what?

  Now we get to the useless, patronizing racism part of Incident One. What the local prosecutor instead did was: preened and postured her face on national magazines (“Wait for me to do my most cutesy pose from my best side!”), talked about "racist, racist, racist", tried to push every police officer (with any minor connection to it) under the bus with trumped up charges and held political rallies on the case (while still trying to investigate it for impartial justice???) etc. But did NOT, repeat did NOT do “Just Do Evidence”.

  No one ever did the Police work 101 – in the way that I have described it. 100% of the matter – one way or the other – revolved around just doing that one thing with the standard witness techniques. But it was the one and only thing that was never done. And the whole thing fell apart.

  So much for a blast from the past:

  Now we get to the question of George Floyd. You will want to read it later but below is a link on my previous work about the Floyd Murder:

The Murder Chronicles  

  Early on, I warned about immediately going into “racist, racist, racist” mode. That there was something more going on between them than just what happened on the day of the arrest. I was later given a partial verification (on the very next day, in fact) when it was found that the two of them had worked together at the same night club.

  However, the owner then lied about the connection. She said that while they were both employees that she was sure that had not actually met or had any dealings with each other. I did not believe her and was (a few days later) proven right again. Someone (with personal knowledge on the matter) didn’t like the story being buried. So he volunteered that they not only knew each other but that Chauvin was an abusive cop and that Floyd had had continual run-ins with him calling him out for it.

  This was then confirmed by Floyd’s own family. But here is the point: wasn’t that a rather significant omission? They were watching the chaos unfold, knew that there was way more to the story than just “racist, racist, racist” – and sat on it? Once they were actually confronted with it, they did make a nebulous “it could have been part personal” statement. But here is where I will go into the same issues as I did with Freddie Gray: on why there are no heroes in this particular incident.

  I still feel strongly sympathetic to Floyd – as my Murder Chronicles will tell you. The police have told many shifting and incoherent stories about his (possible) drug abuse. And there is a lot about the story line of the phony money that has not had a good explanation either. But it may turn out that Floyd had, indeed, relapsed into drug abuse. If so, then he did bring some of his end down on himself – to at least some degree. As well as “Don’t Resist” there is also “Don’t do drugs” – if you truly want to remain safe (and from people on both sides of the law).

  Then there is his family. And, yes, my Murder Chronicles relate my divided feelings. What do you say to (or about) people who are legitimately grieving? But what if part of their response is to be untruthful and sit on things that the rest of us should know about? What do you do then?

  The Lame Stream Media? How much even needs to be said? Why in the blank haven’t they followed up on any of this? Must we live in a country guided by a bunch of schlock moralizing – followed by ‘narratives’ that then direct what we are (or are not) allowed to think, talk about and act on? Yes, the ‘narrative’ is the standard “racist, racist, racist” – but what if that is not what really happened? What is there was more - and at least a part of that "more" involved the "part personal" statement by Floyd's family?

  And, of course, the local law enforcement community. What Chauvin did was hideous, hideous, hideous but what if it was guided by other factors - like whatever Floyd’s family was talking about as “part personal”? And, like Freddie Gray, is there still anyone out there who wants to “Just Do Evidence”? Apparently not: just like Gray there is a simple Police Work 101 way that this could (and should)  have been dealt with.

  You go through every thing there is about the murder victim – exhaustively (including his having a prior relationship with the police officer who ultimately killed him). Then you go through everything about the accused Murderer (including his having a prior relationship with someone who he was ultimately responsible for killing.) And you check all of the connections exhaustively.

  In the link I provided earlier (my Murder Chronicles) Chauvin could, potentially, be analogous to someone named a Lynn Davis. He was an actual killer cop – not just a cop who inadvertently killed someone. And he was tried and convicted of Capital Murder. Chauvin could be exactly that same type of killer – if the full story of his prior connections to Floyd are fully run down. But because it is not happening, the case (like Freddy Gray) now appears to be falling apart.

  Chauvin is still likely to go down for some type of a manslaughter – with a potential for a handful of years in prison. But that is chump change if he is a Lynn Davis styled killer cop. But who is to blame for it if that happens? Well ... isn’t it obvious?

   It’s me!!! I am an unapologetic White Male conservative (and, therefore, am at least racially ‘insensitive’ if not a full White ‘nationalist’ – whatever that new term is supposed to mean). I am not playing ball with “racist, racist, racist”. But I am insisting, instead, on being some type of a nitpicker that just wants to keep criticizing people for not doing a sufficient amount of “Just Do Evidence”. So, clearly, the fault involved lies with me?

  What’s more: it does not even stop there. I have even argued that the place where this happened at is a left wing, Democrat bastion – and one that the African American themselves have continued to keep re-electing of their own free will. And what was my prior argument about that? Just take this in (if you can truly bear it): “If it is a Democrat bastion – freely re-elected by the African American community itself – then how is a White Republican from a Federal Way, Wa (1669 miles away) supposed to save them from themselves?” Obviously(?), I was just doing more nitpicking.

   But what about Uncle Joe? While all of this plays itself out? Now we can get down to the other part of our caption on useless, patronizing racism – and as it relates to Uncle Joe. Remember how – if you don’t vote for him – you ‘ain’t’ Black. (Note the ‘ain’t’ Black stereotype – does that  relate to Blacks (supposedly) being illiterate? I had never heard Biden use ‘ain’t’s before this comment.) What about the African American who he stereotyped as a crack addict for doing his job – and actually asking him some tough questions?

   Maybe it is just more of my nitpicking but isn’t there something rather self defeating about the arrangement where someone promises to be your liberator – but only as long as you will promise to continuously keep kissing his ass? Just more of the useless schlock moralizing and the patronizing type of racism. And his extreme identity politics – every nomination, every policy is supposed to revolve around our systemic racism and having racial equity monitors running how all things must be done?

  This is just it’s own version of racist, patronizing garbage. But what happens when birds like this come home to roost in the soon to happen Chauvin trial? Where everything racially sensitive was done – except, that is, a through investigation? And the case, ultimately, goes straight to hell?

  What will Biden do then? And the BLM’ers? For, after all, if they were willing to burn out an entire country (when Trump was the Prez) for just having the event happen – then what should be the follow up if Chauvin gets a slap on the wrist punishment? So we can see two forks in the road for the two different characters we are looking at now:

   For the BLM’ers:

      1) They don’t do anything – and thereby act inconsistently. Might that not give the whole game away - about what was really going on? That it was all just the Chaos Theory being put to use - to take out a government they wanted to be rid of?

      2) They act consistently and do what they did before – but even geometrically worse. Then what happens with Uncle Joe (UJ)?

  For UJ:

     1) If he also acts consistently – and responds in the same way that he did when Trump was in the driver’s seat – then we will get to see what it looks like when an entire country is, literally, burned out from underneath everyone’s feet. Or,

     2) He will have to act inconsistently - and Out-Trump Trump in his own response. Thus, Biden will only be able to act consistently (with lame responses) if the BLM’ers don’t act consistently (and do nothing). And if the BLM’ers act consistently (they start burning us all out) then he will be forced to act inconsistently (having to out-Trump Trump). Thus, we may at least get to see someone getting outed as a hypocrite in at least some way. Or they both will act consistently (The BLM'ers burn us all out and Biden does the same lame response as before) - and we can all watch our country get burnt straight to the ground.

   Whichever way this, ultimately, goes it is still not the stuff of which stable Republics are made. And pardon me for being such a nitpicker about a lot of things.



  On the one hand:

     The initial thought is: how could any society be such a bunch of complete morons? Every politician is always criticized by other people saying, “Don’t pay any attention to what they say -  pay attention to what they do.” But how could anyone fall for the idiotic stunt pulled by Trump’s critics “Don’t pay any attention to what he has actually done - just be perturbed by all of the awful things that he says”! And they prevailed!

   Now below is what Trump actually did:

  1) The most successful economy ever: a 3% unemployment rate with no inflation. And this is what actually PRODUCES the progressive results – while ‘progressive’ policies always are nothing but pure destruction. To wit: here is what was actually produced by Donald Trump’s 3% unemployment rate:

     a) income redistribution: the bottom 20% of the economy got double digit wage increases while the top 20% had flat wage rates. That is an income redistribution that actually works – rather than an ideology of ‘income redistribution’ that just destroys the incomes of everyone.

     b) the most progressive income tax rates anywhere in the world. Income Redistributors (the ideological kind, I mean) are always lamenting about how great it would be to live in a country that has the most progressive income taxes. And, therein, is the ultimate proof of them just be blind ideologues: because they already DO live in such a country. No other country has anywhere near as high a percentage of its people paying absolutely no income taxes as ours. Nor where the top 10% pay as high a proportion of all the taxes as does ours.

     c) it actually produces the “living wage” – rather than trying to get it mandated by a Socialist government. Every 1% drop in the unemployment rate increases the actual minimum wage (what people are really being paid) by dollars per hour. Even the most menial jobs will pay higher and higher wages as the labor market gets tighter and tighter. Which leads to another main accomplishment.

  2) He flawlessly executed the most successful national policy ever devised: America First. It does work, it did work and here is how well it worked:

    a) He (ostensibly the ‘Orange Idiot’) got the better trade deals that we were told he could not get by the Erudite and Brilliant constitutional lawyer Barrack Obama (and company).

    b) He (ostensibly the ‘Orange Idiot’) got the manufacturing jobs back that the Erudite and Brilliant Obama (and company) also said could not happen.

    c) He did the same with the Mexican border. He got two different Mexican governments to play ball with us (and on our terms) at agreeing that all immigration should be “safe, orderly and legal”. I am quoting both Mexican governments – not Trump or his followers. Both Mexican administrations were brought around to announcing (and enacting) “safe, orderly and legal” immigration.

    d) He did the same thing with all the new peace deals in the Middle East that no one else was ever able to do. Six different Arab governments announcing recognition of the State of Israel. How does an ‘Orange Idiot’ accomplish such things I wonder? It is because he was never the idiot – it was all just a persona problem. It was not a performance problem (when it comes to his many accomplishments).

 3) The enigma (but only for those on the left) about Trump’s successful environmentalism

  Donald Trump proudly took a meat axe to our network of business regulations of all kinds, was  slavishly devoted to those icky, polluteful, barf bag fossil fuel industries (as the Left would describe it) and yet the following is still true: that even if we totally shut down America – and to the point where we all literally starved to death – it would still make no significant difference on the carbon footprint or all of the other eco-indicators. And that is because the U.S. economy (with all its unregulated, barf bag fossil fuel industries etc.) is still that little a problem to the Global environment.

 4) The ‘Racist’ Trump also beat everyone else out cold at achieving racial justice.

   The Second Chance program, improving Black neighborhoods through his own urban investment plans, supporting Black colleges and better educational opportunities for minorities, the economics that resulted in minorities getting some of the biggest pay gains and on … and on … and on. But now we go from our starting with “On the one hand” to …

But on the other hand:

   This is probably the best way to detour over to the basic tragic aspect of the Trump Presidency. Always remember the Donald Trump of the Third Debate.

  For example: he made his strongest statement ever on racial justice “I am the least racist person in this room. I have done more (note: he talks about doing. His enemies say: ignore what he has done and concentrate on his persona) than any President since Abraham Lincoln. And I am proud of that record.” What is more: 56% of the African Americans listening to him were favorable to what he said. For the first time since he was the President, he finally got a surge in the approval ratings; above 50% even – no longer ‘underwater’.

  And all from one debate performance. Which is the tragedy that tells the real tale. All he ever needed to get favorable approval ratings was to act in a way that people think of as “presidential”. Even someone who voted against him said “I am surprised he was able to keep it together for the full 90 minutes.” Thus, the two Trumps: The First Debate performance which no one liked – even his advocates vs. the Third Debate that was done in a way that people deemed to be more “presidential”.

   What Trump never realized is that he always had a 60%+ approval for his issue stances. But he always lagged nearly 20% behind this in his job approval rating. And, even though most of the reasons for it were unfair, he never took heed of the problem and gave people what they needed from him: an assurance of being “presidential”. And he does bear some of the blame – especially in his unnecessarily risky practice of alienating suburban married women (normally Republicans).               

   He did call Rosie O’Donnell a “fat slob” – and I do believe that you never ever refer to a woman this way – even if they are as obnoxious as Rosie. He then did a cringe moment of “But she started it!” – as utterly unpresidential a response as one can make. He referred to Stephanie Clifford as a “horse face” – for no necessary reason. And as controversial as Megan Kelly may be, she hit the nail on the head: “She’s a porn star while you’re supposed to be a President.”

  All of which went on for five years with endless numbers of genuine supporters saying (repeatedly): “if you could just stop doing that one thing …” Thus, there must be some responsibility for the President also. Look at what I will call the Farfel Issue.

  Let us say that I have done good by someone in an astronomical way. But, for whatever reason, it has been made a proven fact to me for, say, five years that if I say the words “Farfel, farfel, farfel” that they will be unable to vote for me because of some mental hindrance. Now this would, in my opinion, make such a person an utterly air headed ditz. That it is ridiculous (and even unpatriotic) to get so wrapped up in persona issues when there is an entire nation at stake.

    But … if I spend the entire five years walking straight up to that person, looking them straight in the face and saying “Farfel, farfel, farfel” at what point do I bear some of the blame for it also? This is an analogy for how Trump too often stepped on his own message. There was no PC involved in doing a Third Debate style of deportment vs. the First Debate style of deportment. There was no compromise involved on any point of principle – there was just a better outreach involved which is, also, a necessary part of leadership.

  If, at any time, he had said something to the effect that “I realize that there has been some bad leadership involved with certain types of my deportment” (and then acted like the Trump of Debate Number Three) he would have never had any more underwater approval ratings. Reagan was reelected with a 59% plurality against only a 41% vote of his opponent. And Trump could have had that type of a performance also. For, again, there was the Third Debate – by doing just one 90-minute performance of what a lot of average people regard as “holding it together” he, instantly, got the approval boost that had eluded him during his entire Presidency.

  And this was despite the intentional hatchet job coverage by the Fourth Estate. He did have the power to change things around but simply failed to do it until it was too late. And even the cheatings of the election would not have mattered. You cannot cheat down an 18% vote spread – the spread that Reagan got – and that he could have had also. But it is time to go forward.

  Though people were foolish to let personal foibles trump successful actual policy, enough of them still did to make Trump vulnerable in his re-election efforts. Though Trump deserves to still be the President, he is not. And it is due to a small number of personal flaws on his part as well also. Thus, our Current News! will start covering the Biden Administration in more depth – and we will move away from the past. But ... I admit to doing this only reluctantly. I do still wish we could be talking about Trump as President rather than Kamala Harris (who is actually operating as the President).




   Our Diary about the Impeachment of a President who is no longer a President (another Pelosi-only type of a caper) now gets to the third and final aspect. Our first point was about making speeches (which only Trump would get impeached for), the second was about contesting the election (which only Trump would get impeached for) and this last one is about the mass incompetence of everyone on Jan the 6th (which only Trump would get impeached for also).

On the speech: we started with the House Managers (that prosecuted Trump) talking about incitement because, as they claimed to see it, his actions were obviously likely to cause a riot. But, as you recall, it was not, apparently, obvious to them at the time – any more than it was for anyone else. For none of them saw it coming any more than anyone else did.

On dasting to contest an election: we then went with the House Managers talking about how “OK, maybe, it wasn’t just about one speech” but the whole atmosphere involved from him contesting the election. But doesn’t it take two sides to create a certain atmosphere about things?

For example: how much transparency was allowed for the whole process - so people could see what was going on for themselves? And: how much open discussion was allowed about it as it became a censored topic by Big Tech? What did they think people would assume when they then did a well-coordinated communications blackout effort against a democratically elected President?

Even someone who has acted as stupidly as Pelosi has often acted ought to be able to see that if you act guilty it tends to make more people think that you are guilty. And, frankly, what about  the ones who AREN’T reacting negatively to censorship and blacking out a democratically elected President? There are many who wonder if THEY are not the ones that are the real radical nut jobs.

Thus, blaming the election contest for the circus atmosphere is just another case of Deflect Away. We have a media that does all its coverage like a circus atmosphere and then blames Trump and right wingers for that type of an atmosphere existing (that they created). Deflect Away.

So now we get to the third aspect of why (they say) Trump should have been Impeached: the total and mass incompetence of everyone (including Pelosi and Mitch McConnell) that is all Trump’s fault! The Sergeant-at-Arms for the House and Senate do not answer to the President but to Pelosi and McConnell. The President does not control the Mayor of D.C. and the National Guard must be a requested matter before the President can even act there. But I do not Kool-Aid drink for anyone.

So, yes, there was the President’s own melt down – to at least some degree. And, yes, the President (also) had an inappropriate relationship with a canine in at least some of his handling of it. Thus, here are the related factors that may not show him having his own act together – but still show that he had no treasonous acts going on:

1) When people have a political interest to exaggerate, they exaggerate massively. What most of the public is unaware of is the massive size of the Capitol complex. 500 people could, easily, be wandering around - in some manner - all throughout the area without even creating any real sense of ultimate doom about what was happening. And it is a Congressman McGovern who is the ultimate hypocrite here.

He now says all the hyperbole about blood baths, insurrections, ‘armed’ mobs etc. But at 2:30 pm: he was the last Congressman evacuated, saw a small number of people in his part of the building and said, at that time, that that was his first indicator of how bad things were.

And yet this was a time that was 2 to 3 hrs. into the events of the day. Which just makes me think: if it was really such a blood bathed, insurrectionist, armed mob melee then why did it take so long for it to get to him – and to make any real impression on him? So which version of Congressman McGovern are we supposed to believe: the spontaneous one who spoke at 2:30 pm  - or the politician one speaking several hours later into the TV cameras?

2) We still do not know the real perspective. It has been called an armed mob – but no one discharged any weapons. It has been called a bloody insurrection – and yet no one died as a result of what they did except for the one woman who was shot by the police. It has been called an insurrection (and an organized one) when no one did any well organized, purposeful activity that could have really made anything significant happen.

Granted a lot of people had decided, in advance, to go there and do some type of mischief – but with no real game plan. Again, anything and everything that was said or done that day is on a CCTV and some type of a recording. I have seen nothing that shows a well-organized group of people, acting in unison and in a logical manner to do anything significant against the government. So where is either the insurrection or a well-organized type of anything? Finally, a Mark Meadows was with the President the whole time, was observing the CCTV feeds and has stated that the reality is a lot less than the hype.

3) Trump’s own short comings were like other people’s also. The first of his short comings is the number one dirty little secret: that everyone - left, right and center – honestly believed that Trump people do not do riots. This is the ultimate hypocrisy of the Left – they know that their people do riots, but they simply assumed that our type of people would not.

Trump also believed this. The House Manager’s own evidence – that was supposed to shock the sensibilities of a nation and that they got in at the last minute – has Trump making his (supposedly) awful conversation with a Kevin McCarthy. But in that conversation, he is saying that he believed the rioters were Antifa types and not his.

And why isn’t that believable? It is the Democrats who put this in as their own evidence. If they do not feel it is reliable evidence, then why were they the ones who put it into the record? Also, as mentioned earlier, this was everyone else’s assumption also.

The Leftist Democrat Mayor of D.C., Pelosi and et al all also made the presumption that ‘those’ types of people do not riot. And to be honest, there is still a part of me that is saying that too. I am still not certain there was not some type of a wheels within wheels gambit going on. But at least I am willing to admit to my prejudices and that I could turn out to be wrong.

But there is still a legitimate question as to whether he properly had his head into the game. Being impartial, even when it might not be the most flattering to someone whom I support: it does need to be stated that he was still lobbying for votes about the certification - even while the grounds were being breached and people were being evacuated. He did get Pence’s name involved in the process that later came back to bite everyone – when his name would up being tied in with Pelosi’s during the unrest.

But to look at it in the whole picture: he is still dozens of times the man that Biden, the journalists and all both his friends and foes are. None of them could have taken the incessant undermining, the distortions of his every thought, work and deed and the non-stop castigation of everything about him for even 5 weeks without folding up like a cheap suit. Yet he put up with it for five years. So whatever ratio there is between 5 weeks and 5 years is the ratio by which he is still much more of  a man than any of them. But he did still melt down at the end of his administration - in my opinion.

Once the election contest started – and it was put on an endless, poorly advised course that was destined to lead to nowhere – I do feel that he stopped being a full time President. He did not compartmentalize the process: to keep working at the rest of his job too. He lost his necessary  concentration on the Georgia run-offs: he should have been there every day campaigning - rather than just once.

He stopped cracking the whip at getting the coronavirus vaccines out smoothly. He did set up a crack logistics team to get it all out to the local governments. But then did not follow it up afterwards with regular conference calls to the locals – and then cracking the whip at them. He should have done that.

And thus, we got to Jan the 6th. He had no more of an idea about what was going to happen than anyone else did. And when things, unexpected by ALL (including Nutball Nancy Pelosi and et al), did go sideways – I do feel that he still did not seem to be able to get his head totally into the game. But even here a final note is needed: At least at this stage of the investigative process – this may need to be taken into account . For all we have ultimately had is a trial, a verdict and the forming of public opinion – but without any investigation.

Also, we have been talking about the past for the last several weeks. So, I will try to wind up the past in next week’s blurb. It will be a summary of both the Triumphs and the tragedy of Donald Trump. What we  have described here is certainly a part of that story. But I will try to finish out the rest of it next week so we can start being more forward looking. See you then?


The Brief Update: We will be progressing away from a regular virus update. You have already heard it all before - and  a number of times before now. So I will leave you with some final benchmarks to look for. We still don't have the deaths from all possible sources for this last year: this might provide further proof for the inflated death tolls - or not.

   I have talked relentlessly about how medical doctors are getting more any more competent at saving hospital patients from dying. But the official numbers are showing them to have suddenly become less competent at this (since July) by nearly 70%. This is universally agreed to be impossible by any practicing medical doctor anywhere on the entire planet. But here is a last arithmetical certitude: By the end of  March it will no longer be physically possible for any statistically significant number of people to be dying from Covid.

  The reason why comes from a previous analysis: Once you look at anyone who is under 65, and in good health, it is virtually impossible for them to die from the coronavirus. The number is, at a minimum, only 1 chance in 2000 cases. This means that - even if cases reignited to 200, 000 per day - you still could not have more than 100 daily deaths after the end of March. For, by the end of March, there will be two new factors in play:

   1) Everyone in the vulnerable age groups will be all vaccinated plus 

   2) There will also have been an extra three weeks gone by to deal with 'lagging indicators' so ...

  There will simply be no one left standing who will still have any significant vulnerability. And, thus, there will be no source available to account for even 100 deaths happening in any day. As of April, any death tally that numbers above 100 deaths will be a complete crock of garbage.

A final, actual tally: The 7-day rolling hospitalization average is currently down to 45,932 people so the worst case scenario (even using official numbers) of daily deaths is just 459 people. This would be right in line with the truer more accurate numbers of July - and has my belief. When anything truly new occurs, I will post it for you.


According to some: Trump’s election contest was, in and of itself, considered ‘inciting’. So … he should have dropped it, established the precedent that elections should never be contested and, thereby, insured that the future will always have free elections (?). It would always have uncontested ones. But since when does that ensure that that they will ever be free again?

Thus, I will not argue this absurdity at length but … I do want to leave the reader with a better perspective about the entire contest process. I do not Kool-Aid drink for anyone; Trump’s election contest was necessary, but he was poorly advised on how to proceed with it. Basic points:

1) He should not have tried to get a judge to throw out votes. Because we would not want it to be done against us, this is the heights of recklessness. Judges already nullify the ballot box, indirectly, by ruling things to be ‘unconstitutional’. Having a judge directly nullify a ballot box, additional to what they are already doing now, is simply insane – and for it to be done in any direction. (Btw, this is the real reason all the judges did such a quick slap down of Trump anyway: it was the type of relief he was asking for – and that they had no intention of giving it to him.)

Also, this is - most likely - the only time you will ever see me side up with the judicial branch (or anyone else) against Donald Trump (and on any significant point). But … Trump was right to go to court and seek relief – just a different type of relief. More on this later.

2) While I do not want judges doing it, there is nothing wrong with a democratically elected State Legislature deciding that their State’s election process was done incorrectly. There is not only nothing wrong with this – it is what is specifically called out as the way to remedy erroneous elections – and by the Constitution. This should have been what Trump put his reliance on.

3) So … we will now back up one more step: to why Trump had good reasons to suspect something was up – and even before the Times article came out. Here is why I am certain, in my own mind, that it was a sham election process. First, the more general commonsense reasons:

a) I have closely followed every election – all throughout my entire adult life – and they simply do not happen the way that this one happened. Biden polled much lower than Obama and, in most locations, even lower than Hillary Clinton. Yet he was the most dynamic vote drawer of all our countries 232 years of elections? I doubt it.

b) He drew no one – literally – at many of his rallies. It is not possible to have that little interest in a candidate – by his own party – and still be a complete dynamo at getting out all of their vote plus all of the independent vote plus rallying many millions of new voters – by this same candidate. It didn’t happen. We are being played for fools.

c) He was watched by 65 million people saying that he was going to get rid of the fossil fuel industry. If you watched the third debate everyone in the entire room (Democrat operatives, Republican operatives and both Trump as well as all the journalists) all knew that Biden had just laid the Supreme Egg. And yet it had zero electoral impact in the oil producing states – Trump still lost in these areas. And where he had won before against a candidate that did no such gaffe? I doubt it.

d) You cannot draw that many votes, be that much of a dynamo candidate against an incumbent and have the incumbent’s party still clean out your clock at all the lower levels – in the same election. It doesn’t happen that way. Finally, Trump was the one who had a 51% job approval rating at the day of the election and pulled in a massive new upsweep of new voters – yet is still supposed to be the one who lost.

But there are more direct reasons for believing that he won – from the actual numbers themselves. The problem is that it is like the coronavirus death tallies. I have personally observed that there are simply too many patterns - in the U.S. numbers - that do not exist anywhere else in the entire world (with one possible exception). In all of the other countries in the world, all seven days of the week have the same approximate death tallies. The United States is the only place in the entire world where – according to the official numbers:

* All Sundays and Mondays have the virus taking a day off in almost all databases – except one. And in that database the virus in taking all the Tuesdays and Wednesdays off.

* You are two to three times more likely to die on the middle days of the week than on the others.

* The periods where the higher and higher death tallies are being assessed involve a correspondingly higher ‘surge’ amount on the various ‘surge’ days. That is, there is always some type of a massive surge between Sunday/Monday and Tuesday/Wednesday which then always abates between Saturday/Sunday to go back to the lower levels. HOWEVER … this surge amount is around, say, 500 when the lower death tallies are being assessed. This surge amount then increases to 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and up to 3000 as the main way that the periods of increased deaths (are said) to occur. In short, it is a recognizable math sequence – rather than a natural event. And I have had several statisticians affirm to me that I am, indeed, seeing what I think that I am seeing.

* Lastly, I have traced all these numbers down and found that they cannot be traced back to their original sources. That is, the State level tallies show the bizarre numerical sequences – and these numbers are then used to get the national numbers that produce the same weird sequences. But if you go back one step to the County level numbers these weird sequences disappear. So … what happened in-between these two steps?

Especially since there is no in-between area between these two steps – theoretically. The numbers are first tabulated at the County level and then are directly transmitted (theoretically) to the State tallies. So how have we still wound up with totally different numbers at the different steps of the process? This is also true of that one-off database I mentioned earlier. (That does the Tuesday/Wednesday day off for the virus – rather than the Sunday/Monday).

It is the WHO database that is the one-off one. However, WHO does NOT have its own sources and collection methods and personnel. All WHO does is take the numbers from the nation’s databases and then transmits them to its own. So, why isn’t there any database – anywhere in the entire U.S. that corresponds with the WHO numbers? Their numbers (theoretically) only come from ours. And yet we do not have a single database anywhere in the U.S. that in any way, shape or form corresponds with their numbers. So how – exactly – did their numbers even happen?

But this is where I need to tie my parallel in with the problem of vote tallies vs. death tallies. Suppose I was told that there were certain rules about what I am contesting here in the death tallies:

a) That I needed to get each one of these tallied deaths to have some tangible form that I could specifically refer them to.

b) Next, I would have to go systemically through each of these tallies and say, definitively, this one is right, this one is wrong, etc. And,

c) After doing this I would need to show that, were I to dump them onto someone’s desk for a re-tabulation, that it could pass a certain benchmark for relevance. Otherwise, the tallies will stand exactly as is.

That is the essence of Trump’s problem. He has as strong a case for vote tally fraud as I have for death tally fraud. And it is a similar type of a case. But it is simply the wrong type of a case for an election contest question. Showing that Biden’s numbers are based on multiple statistical impossibilities (as they are) does not break the votes specifically down into the right type of a format. One where you can say that “these specific ones are in” and that “these specific ones are not”. And then dump the results onto some one’s desk to be re-tabulated.

4) So, we can now start going back to where we were. With all of this in mind, what would have been the proper way to contest the election? First, the Courts should have been used - but to do the equivalent of a search warrant request. He had a good reason to suspect something was up, but the next step was to gather more evidence. The courts should have been used to help him gather whatever relevant evidence might exist on these matters.

5) Next, this would affect the way that the State Legislatures should have been used. They were not obligated to use the type of standards I mentioned above. He could have appealed to a more reasonable standard: if the Biden team could show where they got their votes from then they should have gotten the certification. If Trump was able to get the right type of evidence to show where he would have had more votes, then he should have gotten the certification. But here is where the State Legislatures failed the process.

If neither party could put on a definitive case, then they should have certified the contest for no one. This is what would have forced the Biden team to the table. If they had good answers for the irregularities, then they would have to present them – if they wanted the certification. And if they could come up with these good answers then he should have been certified. But as of now, once you are the first to run up certain numbers, then all the rules are against the other party and you have no rules that apply to you. The legislatures could have used their leverage to change that. But they did not.

But here is where we will always bring it back to the more basic issues. At no point did Trump:

1) violate any due process issues

2) do anything different than was done at other times in history (for similar situations) and

3) even in spite of being poorly advised on the particulars, his last effort was not an effort to do any of these things either.

Now I do not agree with Trump that the Vice President could have gotten the State Legislatures one more bite at the apple to get involved. But hoping for such an outcome - however off such an approach may have been - still does not involve an effort to subvert an election or the democratic processes. Especially since, as I have mentioned before, this was (successfully) done once before (Tilden v. Hayes) by using the Constitutional processes - and as they are written in the Constitution.

But what of the world of Pelosi and the endless hypocrisy? Did you know what else the Times article has to say? It says, and this is directly from them, that if the numbers stayed against Biden that they would also have contested the election - and no matter what! But further – you do not like the way that Trump, ultimately, ‘incited’ a mob – but guess what again?

The Times article states that they would have not only ‘incited’ mobs but that they had them directly controlled, had them in advanced preparations in some form of abeyance – and were going to send them out into the streets – as a mob!!! And that is directly out of the Times article. (Btw, have you noticed that, now that this article has laid an egg for the Times magazine, that you cannot pick up a copy of it as a member of the general public? I have been to several bookstores and magazine racks and have never seen a copy of it there. I was also told – in one case – that they were in the back but were not being brought out. Weird behavior?)

Despite the flaws that there may have been in Trump’s effort – at least up to the 6th of January – he still tried to do it all through the courts, the legislatures and the due process approaches. But here is (yet) another direct quote from Pelosi: “Due process is irrelevant”. During the last article we talked about the Free Speech aspects where Pelosi also said that that was irrelevant too.

Has Trump ever said that either Free Speech or Due Process are irrelevant? And even if you are a gut level hater of Trump or his Trumpites – have you ever even met a Trump supporter (as well as Trump himself) who has maintained that Free Speech or Due Process is irrelevant? But Pelosi has.

Ergo, even if you want to remain a gut level Trump hater it is still a case of pick your poison. However much you may think that things like this should make Trump look bad there is still nothing about any of it that makes the journalists, the modern-day Political Left or Pelosi look good – is there?


    I hope I am not overplaying the latest Times article about the Shadow Campaign of 2020. But there is still more hypocrisy involved - even than what I have already written about so far. Thus, one more feature about the hypocrisy issue. I put it out on the Quora forum.
What are the most extreme examples of hypocrisy?

     The Brief Update: The Virtue Signaller strikes again. Did you see the special memorial for the 500,000th fatality by Joe Biden? The problem: he has fully lived up to Donald Trump's third debate. "You are all talk and no action, Joe!" So: a quick rehash of all the 'actions' of Joe Biden since the virus:

   1) He announced a 12 point plan while running for office: all 12 items were already being done.

   2) Two days after being elected he announced just a two point plan: a mask mandate and increased testing! He really wasn't aware that that was already being done? Is that why he couldn't get a pen put into his shirt/coat pocket and wound up putting an ink pen into his pants pocket instead? See below:

An ink pen in your pants pocket?

   3) Two days after his inauguration he said that "I have no control over the trajectory of the disease over the next few months". So what did we elect him for? To be "all talk and no action"?

   4) If you recall my continued disgust at the CDC - for letting several weeks go by before scheduling an approval meeting for the latest vaccine. If Joe really is more than just a virtue signaller then why didn't he do what Trump would have done? Kick some butt and try to get people to work faster. I would much rather have a Commander in Chief who kicks butt - and makes people work faster - than to elect a President to just to be an emoter.

And back to the Actual Death tally: take the 7-day rolling average of the number of people hospitalized and just drop off the last two digits of that number. The 7-day rolling average is currently down to 53,341 people so the worst case scenario of daily deaths is just 533 people. And this is just assuming that our physicians have not lost any ground over the last several months at treating the hospitalized. Most physicians feel they have gotten even better.


The second impeachment revolved around three things:

1) ‘Incitement’

2) An election contest

3) Alleged dereliction of duty

This is the first of three segments and handles ‘incitement’. And, as is often the case, the Democrats own arguments are the best rebuttal. First, they had to totally abandon the one- speech-being-the-incitement theme.

It was done by people who weren’t even at his speech, starting it before his speech, had intended to come to D.C. to be doing it in the first place, etc. Ergo, they had to drop the speech as the incitement vehicle and create one from scratch. Which is what they (clearly) did. Just look at what the presentation was - and you don’t even need to do a rebuttal.

It took cherry picked video clips from all of the ‘awful’ things Trump has been said (to have said) for the last five years. None of them had anything to do with each other, nor what happened on the 6th or with anything that even particularly ‘incited’ anyone at the time they were spoken. They only showed one statement that anyone could even regard as questionable.

To use a prior example: Trump does do bombast and talks grandiosely at times. “Making the Mexicans pay for it” was a case in point. He was right to build the wall but it is (arguably) a little in your face to even tell the Mexicans they were going to pay for it. I would rather he had not added that extra rhetorical flourish. It, ultimately, complicated things more than it helped and was, perhaps, unnecessary.

Similarly, he has been proven right on his instincts once again by the Times article. He had every recent to smell a rat because there was an entire rat colony doing a conspiracy against him (‘conspiracy’ is the Times own words for what was going on – not mine). He was right to smell a rat and was, therefore, also right to talk about rat infestations as a threat to an honest election process.

But locking it in that dogmatically; “the only way we can lose this election is if it is rigged” is just Trump being Trump. He was not making a calculated statement, he was making the opposite – his often unfiltered one (perhaps too unfiltered at times). Was it a wise statement? Perhaps not. Was it a calculated line of verbiage (with him consciously thinking about his upcoming planned  ‘Insurrection’) – and while he was still making this statement? Bullcrap.

But here is what I will do with each of the three articles as I conclude them: compare Trump against Pelosi. This first article is about speech being used as a basis for trying someone. And here it is Pelosi that is calling Trump a threat to the Constitution even while stating – in her own words – “The First Amendment is irrelevant”. Has Trump ever said that the First Amendment is irrelevant?

And has Trump ever abused (or ‘incited’) anyone anywhere near as badly as his counterparts. No! Not even close. And who is being the most devise and ‘inciting’ anyways? Listen to the ‘nut job’ Greene as her ‘irrelevant’ First Amendment rights were used against her to strip her of her rights (that she was still democratically elected to have by her constituents):

“You know what the media does? And you guys are great at it, and I’m telling you this because I want to like you, but you’re doing a really good job at addicting our nation to hate, teaching people to hate people like me, President Trump. And then on the right, it’s the same way teaching people to hate AOC, Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi. See, it goes both ways, doesn’t it? But teaching people to hate and addicting them to it is killing our country. It’s causing people to no longer be friends, families to no longer talk to each other. Even husband and wives getting divorced, parents not talking to their children and the other way around. I think that’s terrible, and it’s shameful.”

For a total nut job, she has still said something a lot smarter than anything that I have ever heard from Pelosi for a really long time.


    I admit to slamming it to a Brian Kemp in a rather un-Christian and uncharitable manner. Maybe I have allowed his almost criminal idiocy to get my goat. The GOP Senators and Representatives have learned how to do battle against the Democrats. But I was not aware of how unprepared many GOP people are out at the State and Local level. Or maybe these State and Local level leaders are the last holdouts of the Never Trumper Republicans. Who knows?
   Decide for yourself if I was too hard on a Governor Brian Kemp. The Quora link is below:

The Brief Update: At least one of the public sources for tracking the coronavirus says it will stop on March 7, 2021. Normally, I would not think much of this but "Why?" It is perfectly reasonable that they may simply not feel like continuing for any number of reasons. But I will keep an eye on this matter and report back on it after this March 7, 2021 deadline occurs.

   On a possible side note: eventually they have to end this numbers farce. How do you keep telling people that thousands are still dying every day - once every one has been vaccinated? And the effort does seem to be winding down. They are pushing the death tallies down to just 1-2 thousand per day. So, maybe, March the 7th is about the right time to just call it quits? Who knows?

The Actual Death tally: take the 7-day rolling average of the number of people hospitalized and just drop off the last two digits of that number. The 7-day rolling average is currently down to 64,554 people so the worst case scenario of daily deaths is just 645 people. And back to a main point about some of our arguments.

This would be right in line with the July peak of the virus earlier in the last year. It it, thus, a very believable number. The hospitalization rate has dropped to the same peak levels as at the two prior epidemic peaks: in April and in July. But, according to the death tallies, rather than have the same death totals as July - we are having the same death totals as we had in April.

That means, that between April and July, our doctors got 2 1/3 times better at saving hospitalized people from dying (and according to official numbers). But that, between July and now, we have regressed by 70% at this ability and are now no better at saving lives than we were in April. So ... don't call me a nut job who believes in conspiracy theories - prove it! Just find one physician - anywhere on the entire planet - who will tell you that that is reasonable; bring him to me and I will gladly wear a scarlet 'NJ' across my chest from then on.


Four facts:

   Fact #1: There was an election contest called Tilden vs. Hayes (1876). The sole difference is that Hayes did everything that Trump did – except that he prevailed. And democracy was not derailed in the process. The final Trump effort – what January the 6th was really about - was a last effort at giving the State Legislatures a chance to reconsider their certifications. This is what enabled Hayes to prevail – and Trump was hoping for a last chance to do the same thing. No violations of democracy here at all. But look at the other side with the next fact you need to know:

  Fact #2: The Times magazine just made 4 acknowledgements:

a) There is such a thing as the Deep State -

“That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

b) Antifa does exist and that the Deep Staters have some way of influencing what they do:

“To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”

In a way, Trump was right. (Oh really? Haven’t we been told for the last five years that he is a total nut job on every word that comes out of his mouth?)

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”

c) The dropping of Trump from Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere was orchestrated by politicians that the media coordinated with on a joint front – Trump could have done nothing but Bible reading on these platforms and he would still have been dropped:

“That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told … a well-funded cabal of powerful people … working together behind the scenes to … steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

and d) he was right to smell a rat in the changing of the election rules:

“That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told … a well-funded cabal of powerful people … working together behind the scenes to … change rules and laws …”

In all the above, the same people who just wrote this article described Trump as the “alt-right” nut for making these identical accusations all throughout his 4 years in office. But if Trump has been right about this all along – and the others have been deliberately lying – then what else (of significance) is also untrue? How about the third fact that there is proven corruption in the 2020 election?

   Fact #3: Corrupt election practices have been proven to be true, in a court of law, during this election season. Read the inserted article below:

“House race decided: A New York judge ruled Friday that Republican Claudia Tenney defeated U.S. Rep. Anthony Brindisi, a Democrat, by 109 votes in the nation's last undecided congressional race. The ruling by Judge Scott DelConte could clear the way for Tenney to be sworn in as the representative for central New York's 22nd Congressional District, barring emergency intervention by a state appeals court. Since the courts intervened late last year, the contest has been defined by ever-changing, razor-thin margins and a convoluted judicial process that exposed egregious flaws in the way election officials handled and counted ballots.”

A special note: all the concerns that Trump stated about the specific electronic machines involved, mail-in ballots, etc. have all been stated as truisms by Democratic congressmen on several prior occasions. Mail-in ballots, for example, are outlawed by most European Union countries – specifically because of their potential lack of election integrity. Jimmy Carter chaired an election reform commission and came to the same basic conclusions. Nadler (a real pro-Trumpite?) has made special alarms about mail-in balloting on prior occasions. And, as I have referred readers to before, the Hate-Trump’s-Guts magazine The Atlantic related a way that elections machines can quote “untraceably rig elections”. But there is a final fact 4 that you may not be familiar with - but that may well be a part of the election fraud controversy. Decide it for yourself.

   Fact #4: I have related before how I personally know that all electronic databases are all potentially compromised. Since the specific date of a Tuesday, April the 7th I have personally observed the Coronavirus death tallies being electronically manipulated to produce inflated outcomes. And this came about through a by-the-book way of coming to conclusions:

a) I did not read something from the Nutjob Times and then believe whatever I was told

b) I came to this conclusion after doing daily observations of the numbers and sources for myself and,

c) I then had my work double checked by statisticians to be sure I was really seeing what I thought that I was seeing. I have provided the documentation for this before and what they basically say can be summarized by a Q and A between myself and my statistician:

My Q: My concerns that brought me to you: were they justified? Statistician’s A: Yes.

My Q: Is it possible for the death tallies to be off by many tens of thousands? Statistician’s A: Yes.

My Q: Is the way that the deaths are being tallied impossible to have actually occurred that way? Statistician’s A: Yes.

Spooky stuff - but could it relate to an electronic manipulation of an election? Possibly; the potential danger point for such events (both the death tally manipulations and the possible election tally manipulations) are especially telling. What is called the “Infrastructure of the Internet” is vastly different than the Internet itself. While the Internet itself is vast beyond all measures it is extremely vulnerable at its core infrastructure.

It has just a few central nodes where most of the traffic ultimately goes through. And the number of people who control things at the infrastructure level could be fitted into a small conference room. If someone high enough up the Digital food chain – and with this type of access - wanted to do an ‘inside’ job on vast portions of the Internet, there would be nothing to stop them - or to trace what they would be doing. They can do a hack (without actually hacking anything) due to Administrative Privileges that affect vast areas of the Internet and the information stored there.

Worse, it could all be done with just a one-time visitation - due to what are called algorithms. A deep level insider could, at any time, (and by doing a non-hack hacking with Administrative Privileges) go into enormous parts of the Internet, install an algorithm and then have a manipulation device left behind that would be on autopilot. It would need no supervision, maintenance or any further visits to let it run its course.

This is, and has been for an awfully long time, a potential danger point for all digital information and software systems. If you are high enough up in the digital world (and are willing to do an inside job) you can do significant rewrites of the entire digital universe - and in an undetectable manner. This is a potential that has always existed and that experts in the industry have always known about.

So, why is electronic manipulation still a nut job theory? It is, instead, an industry insider well known potential threat to the stability of our country. And on the question of whether the virus manipulations could be a part of some election manipulations: no one can question that the corona virus has destabilized our entire society - and that it has been politicized to be aimed at Donald Trump. If electronic manipulation was added to their tool kit in this way of hurting him for an election - then why not other possible ways of doing the same basic thing?

But let’s conclude with the real point: let us go ahead and say, just for argument’s sake, that none of the four things above are true. It is still irrelevant. No one, but no one, ever tells you that you can never contest an election unless they are a total crook so and so - and have every intention of crooking every election until the cows come home.

Look at their own record so far. People do not do the following items for no reason:

1) An entire mainstream media that does a 30 second investigation (30 seconds after he questioned the election results – it was deemed BS upon arrival) and then goes into a united set of talking points (of assuming facts not in evidence): “The President in his attempt to subvert the will of the people …” was a typical starting point for every single news item. From the Times article again:

“That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told … a well-funded cabal of powerful people … working together to … steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

They do also write: “They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.”

Just their own answer shows how they are taking the average person to be a complete fool: If the way to “ensure that democracy in America endures” is to have a secret cabal covertly “steer media coverage and control the flow of information” then Russia has always had the most democratic system in the whole world.

What is the difference behind that and Russia? Except that it is a volunteer task force rather than a government directed one. Same reasons, same outcomes, same ultimate effects … just a different cabal of people doing it. More on this subject follows:

2) They also managed to orchestrate a near total communications blackout against a democratically elected President so that his side of the story cannot get heard (controlling the flow of information – to ensure that democracy endures?)

3) They are threatening to expel Senators and Congressman who supported the President’s contest of the results - and to get his lawyers disbarred – and etc. Again, no one does any of these three things for no reason.

Thus, backing down on contesting the election and/or any right to free speech is not only a “No” but a “Hell, no!” proposition. When you see any of the three items mentioned above as their reaction you should push back even harder. Nobody who does any of the above things is interested in safeguarding our democracy. Do not give anything they are saying the time of day.

And at even trying to “meet them half-way”? Not on something like this: do not even give them a piece of the dirty lent from off one of your socks. There is no middle ground on freedom of speech - and the freedom to contest any outcome that you feel is not legitimate.

(My next Thursday article will wrap up this series on the Reichstag Dairy. We will wrap up some of these points further in our analysis of the Second Impeachment).


    I am glad that Pelosi has called for an exhaustive investigation about the riot on January the 6th. But isn't there a bit of a problem here? Didn't they already do the trial of Trump minus the investigation? So she is left with a conflict of interest: if it turns up nothing bad for Trump then she looks like the Horse's Rump.
   And if it does turn up something bad then how is she supposed to do yet another post presidency Impeachment? And then she still looks like the Horse's Rump. This might have been a good reason to do the investigation first before the trial - what most other people normally believe in.
  My Quora addition for the week is about the House Managers case. Look at all of the answers and comments - and then make your own! As I always say: participate in Quora. It needs more non-MSM voices!

     The Brief Update: On 02/04/26 the Johnson & Johnson Company announced it's new one shot vaccine. The FDA (that purports to believe the gagillion deaths per day fairy tales) hath still decided there is no hurry. It will all wait until the 26th (22 days later) until the appropriately scheduled appointment date. They can not even move it up by one day to, say, the 25th  or the 24th or something like that? Even though, by their numbers, we are going to lose thousands of more people on every one of these single days?

   Of course they believe that thousands of people are dying every day. But why should they move up their scheduled date for their approval meeting - so the new vaccine can start going out?

Take the 7-day rolling average of the number of people hospitalized and just drop off the last two digits of that number. The 7-day rolling average is currently down to 78,231 people so the worst case scenario of daily deaths is just 782 people. This obviously a lot less than a 7-day rolling average of  2,666 deaths in one day (official statistic) but, again, so be it.


In last week’s “Brave New World” article (what people are trying to set up - using the Burning of the Reichstag political gambit), I talked about the first major change. People will no longer be allowed to do weird, ‘violent’ talk (or talk that is not deemed to be in the public interest). And that this is completely constitutional because politicians are using private sector companies to flunky for them and to be their enforcers. This week there is the truly critical (??) issue of what will be done about weird people who believe in (by some people's opinions) WEIRD STUFF.

So, a good beginning point: what is QAnon? But the most important question is: why is it anyone else’s GD business? And it is the second question that is the only relevant one – actually – and not the first one.

But to QAnon: QAnon is a group that believes in things that are, most likely, untrue. Specifically, that Satanic worshippers and pedophiles have a disproportionally larger amount of power than most other people believe is so. And that is it. And that is all that has even been alleged.

So … do they believe in violently overthrowing the U.S. government? No. Do they believe in committing terrorist acts? No. Do they believe in – or have any higher tendency than the rest of the population – at stabbing people with knives, shooting people with guns or blowing people up with a big bomb? No. So what are they being hounded for? For what I just said: they are being harassed by Leftist snobs for things that are none of anyone else’s business.

As I said in the Tuesday Quora post on the last Tuesday: there are, literally, dozens of people in my neighborhood, your neighborhood and every one’s neighborhood who believe in some form of whatever is the WEIRD STUFF - at least by someone else's opinion. I also explained why I have no idea who any of them are: it is because I do not particularly even give a bleep, it is none of my business and it is none of yours either.

Next, is this a new mandate for the FBI? Surveillance of all the crazy old ladies and cranky old codgers in every one’s neighborhood? For believing in the WEIRD STUFF? I am not particularly interested in such a new mandate. And, to the liberals (of today’s era) why are you?

And why is there such an interest in conflating this with ‘extreme’. They do believe in things that are, most likely, untrue. But why is that ‘extreme’? An Orthodox Jew believes that the Messiah has not yet come. While the Christian believes that he has come in the person of Jesus - whom we called the Christ. Since one of us must be believing in something that is false, which one of us is the Extremist?

“But wait a minute!”, one of these people might argue “by MY OPINION both notions are, at least, reasonable and to an average reasonable person. So, while either of these notions could be false, I would not call either of them ‘extreme’. I would only go from ‘untrue’ untrue to ‘extreme’ untrue if by MY OPINION they are not even reasonable.” Sounds intriguing legally.

And what about my further beliefs, as a Biblical believer, in a world created in 6 days and in a bodily resurrection performed after three? And what about my not believing in gay liberation? Or in unfettered abortion for any conceivable reason under the rainbow?

And for which one of these four beliefs do I need to get your opinion – as to whether they are, first, true or untrue? Or whether, if untrue, they are just ‘untrue’ untrue rather than ‘extreme’ untrue – so that I can still be allowed to believe in them? And let us see how the FBI fits in here – since I am referring to official FBI testimony about WEIRD STUFF type of people.

Almost all of the mealy-mouthed ranting of the FBI Director (and legendary moron) Christopher Wray is about people whose only claim to fame is their belief in (ostensibly) WEIRD STUFF: QAnon, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, ‘militia’(ish) types etc. With only a few exceptions, all of them are just like QAnon: they do not believe in a violent government overthrow, they do not believe in terrorism, they do not take their beliefs to mean that you should get stabbed with a knife, shot with a gun or to get blown up with a big bomb.

They just believe in the WEIRD STUFF. And it is not just believing, as we are now being told, in things that are ‘untrue’ untrue but that are ‘extreme’ untrue – because of Beloved Christopher’s personal opinions about what constitutes a reasonable belief vs. an unreasonable one.

So … first, the FBI decides what is true vs. untrue. Then they decide what is reasonable – but still maybe untrue – to discern between what is just ‘untrue’ untrue vs. ‘extreme’ untrue. Then they run down all the people who have ‘extreme’ untrue beliefs to see if they believe in doing extreme actions to see if they are potential domestic terrorists and … and … and … If you do not understand my point by now, then I guess there is no reason for me to keep on pontificating.


    I hope I was not overly severe in my Quora domain but enough is enough. Don't you get sick of people who feel so superior when they see someone who believes in WEIRD STUFF? Is it really the job of the FBI to be a bunch of busybodies policing what type of political views are acceptable for people to believe in? This Quora offering was about piling onto Margory Greene for believing in WEIRD STUFF.
   I want you to read my answer but also read all of the others. Do you sense what I sense? A bunch of people who like to feel superior every time there is a cranky belief system out in the world some where?
  Participate in Quora. It needs more non-MSM voices!

  Here was last week's brief challenge:

Quote: "The Brief Challenge ...  According to the official numbers, the doctors became 2 1/3 times better at saving hospital patients from dying between April and July - and with no particularly useful therapeutics available. Now, with wonder drugs and another six months of perfecting their methods, the official numbers say that they are now 50% less competent at saving lives than in July. The challenge: find me just one physician (anywhere on the entire planet) who agrees with that - and I will accept my role as just being a nutbag, a whack job and a total dingaling all wrapped up into one bag." End of Quote.

  But now it has become an even safer bet to oppose the prevailing wisdom: as of last week, the numbers said that we had twice as many people hospitalized compared to July - but were losing 4 times as many people. But get this: after just one week, we now only have about 1 1/2 times as many people hospitalized compared to July. But are now losing (according to the official statisitcs) 5 times as many people!

  In short (according to official statistics) the following has happened:

      1) the new virus cases have dropped about 60% from their peak level

      2) the hospitalizations have been dropping steeply also - about 25% to be specific. But, while all of this is happening :

     3) There is a further cut in their effectiveness at saving people from dying. Now (according to official statistics) they are only 30% as effective at saving lives compared to several months ago in July 2020. Bullcrap!!!

A needed change: we are suspending the use of our Decipher Spreadsheet for a while. This is due to the surge in inflated numbers (even compared to before). We gave some specifics last week: the process is so inflated that not even the relatively un-inflated days of Sunday and Monday are accurate any more. Thus, we will go to the Method 2 that we outlined before:

1) The April, 2020 peak in hospitalizations had about a 3% death rate

2) This became 2 1/3 times better by July, 2020 to a little above a 1% death rate, thus

3) Method 2: assume that we are now at 3 times better (compared to April, 2020). This would mean we are only slightly better than in July which is way too conservative an assumption. I am sure that we are at least 4 times better (compared to April, 2020) but use the more conservative number. This would mean that the death rate is now at 1% for some easy arithmetic:

Take the 7-day rolling average of the number of people hospitalized and just drop off the last two digits of that number. The 7-day rolling average is currently down to 92,210 people so the worst case scenario of daily deaths is just 922 people. This obviously a lot less than 5,182 deaths in one day (official statistic) but so be it.


It is getting easier by the day. I am having to do extraordinarily little proof that the Jan the 6th disturbance is being used as a Burning of the Reichstag political gambit. The media and political elites are doing all the work for me. Remember the Parler (a social media company) timeline:

They have existed for 3 years and had been of zero significance to anyone all throughout. They have no political affiliations and continue to do social platforming in the way that it has always been done. They just act as a social platform and stay out of the way.

BTW, bad actors have are no confidentiality issues with what they p0ost, they can be traced down and dealt with. Or to look at it another way: I would much rather have them expose themselves than to be “de-platformed” - and to operate untraceably until they succeed at doing whatever they want to do. Thus, “Glorification of Violence” is a BS issue.

Finally: the police and authorities DO already monitor social media outlets. The MORE the nut crowd exposes itself on a traceable medium the SAFER we are – not the less safe. They will always exist whether we let them speak or not. Thus, it is much better to let them speak - and on a traceable platform where they are exposing themselves. There is nothing about there "Glorification of violence" policy that makes us safer in any event anywats.

But, back to the Parler social platform: so, what changed? They had been around for years, they changed nothing about their practices during this time and have no political connections or interest. So why did they instantly go from being of no significance to the following:

1) Getting the boot from the social media platform they used to use

2) Got booted off the entire internet by a Tech Giant who had some type of control over the “infrastructure of the internet”.

Another BTW: this is illegal because no one has private ownership over the internet – and that is a settled matter of law. The defense about private companies not being regulated by the First Amendment is not even on point on this one: no one has any private ownership over the internet as a matter of settled law.

No one has private ownership of the airwaves. Thus, no one who has the power to block your signal has the corresponding RIGHT to do it - just because they can do it and, say, are a private sector company. No one has private ownership of the earth’s atmosphere. And, thus, one airline cannot try to block another one from trying to fly through it. Just some quick legal educating that I thought might be necessary here.

3) Lastly, Congress (now that it is controlled by the Democrats?) is investigating their role in the Jan the 6th disturbance. Their role in 9/11, the sinking of the Titanic and the creation of the common cold are said to be other items set to be investigated next.

Wow!!! How did all of this come about? One morning you are of no significance and you wake up the next day to all of this.

What happened is this: all the other social media establishments started practicing censorship based on not wanting to allow the “Glorification of (Right Wing) Violence”. That is what we are talking about – left wing violence is never prohibited by any of them: consider the eloquence of a Richard Rucker:

“All the nurses and doctors that have been working hard are beating the crap out of them. They do not show their faces anywhere or people punch them, kick them, or spit on them. Bunch of dicks.” To which I responded (typical of my “right wing violence”):

“Beg pardon but … don’t they censor right wingers for “glorification of violence”? And for statements a lot less violent than the one you just made?”

And while all of this is playing out Parler, in turn, did nothing except remain the same as they had always been. But look at what used to be a boiler plate write-up of their business enterprise from Wikipedia. It NOW reads (after the censorship campaign began – but not before):

“Parler is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.”

And therein we have the setting of the stage. People (who were censored by the others) gravitated over to Parler. But now, these same companies have shut down Parler and are maintaining that it is because Parler is not doing the necessary “moderating” of content (that they were doing). It is because of their public spiritedness(?) that they are doing this. I doubt it. Remember my previous post about the other Free World leaders who agree with everything that we are saying here? I will re-quote a portion of it below:

“Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny gestures while speaking to a crowd during a political protest on in Moscow, on July 20, 2019. He noted that this pattern had been seen before in both Russia and China when big companies utilized their position to become a government best friend and enabler when it comes to state-based censorship laws.”

Could this be closer to the mark for what they are doing? Decide the matter for yourself. Oh, and yes, it is also all because of January the 6th. It is not what politicians are doing that incites people – it is when people complain about it during a speech that the “incitement” takes place. So, they are free to do whatever they please - you just are not allowed to complain about it anymore.

But this has only been forced upon them (or so their story goes) because of one right wing riot – and strictly because of their public spiritedness that we do not want ‘violent’ types around(?).


   Forget the controversy about a pair of doctors: They have been cut out of the internet - and pay attention to some of the comments. Particularly, a Richard M. Rucker. (I made my own comments in response to his.)
  And where, as always, is the simple common sense? If making a false statement calls for jail time then how do you explain Biden, Fauci and et al when they contradict themselves? For which one of their two statements do they deserve to be imprisoned for - since at least one of the statements has to be false? See the Quora article below to see what we are referring to:
  Participate in Quora. It needs more non-MSM voices!

The Brief Challenge: Correct; for this week I will make a brief challenge. According to the official numbers, the doctors became 2 1/3 times better at saving hospital patients from dying between April and July - and with no particularly useful theraputics available. Now, with wonder drugs and another six months of perfecting their methods, the official numbers say that they are 50% less competent at saving lives than in July. The challenge: find one physician (anywhere on the planet) who agrees with that and I will accept my role as just being a nutbag, a whack job and a total dingaling all wrapped up into one bag.

  But it is a safe bet: the numbers say that we have twice as many people hospitalized as in July but are losing 4 times as many people. But you won't find any physician who thinks that we have become even slightly less competent at saving lives - much less only half as good. Ask around yourself among the physicians; see what they tell you. Never just take my word on anything.

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the best available death tallies (for the period of 01/23/2021 to 01/29/2021) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 01/23/2021  1465 vs. 3367 (John Hopkins) vs. 3979 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 01/24/2021  1816 vs. 1816 (John Hopkins) vs. 3885 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 01/25/2021 1514 vs. 1782 (John Hopkins) vs. 3416 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 01/26/2021  1921 vs. 3991 (John Hopkins) vs. 1921 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 01/27/2021 1776 vs. 3868 (John Hopkins) vs. 1885 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 01/28/2021  1559 vs. 4177 (John Hopkins) vs. 3681 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 01/29/2021  2008 vs. 3583 (John Hopkins) vs. 4100 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 22,584 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 22,867 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was (at most) 12,060 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was (at most) 1,723 deaths per day. Again, it was 
no where near the daily media hype that runs at more than twice that level. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 432,405
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 420,226
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 247,031

But a caveat here: In the past, the Sunday and Monday numbers were left as the least inflated and was my basis for getting the best possible numbers. As this latest mass inflation monstrosity has picked up steam they started inflating the Monday numbers so that they were always several hundred above Sunday's. Now they have started inflating even the Sunday numbers so that they are no longer as reliable as before either. Thus, I will have to start using the number of hospitalizations as my yard stick for the most accurate death tallies.

It is the one that I told you about earlier: take the number of hospitalized people and drop the last two numbers off of the end of it. That is (currently) the best rough tally available. Under this yard stick the deaths are no higher than 1200 per day. This is actually the best estimate.


Some aspects of the usual misreporting:

“A Capitol police officer was overpowered and beaten by rioters and died a day later”. Wrong, the police officer that was dragged out of the building (the one they are talking about here) was rescued by the other rioters. He did not die, period -  a day later or otherwise. He is still alive.

They are conflating the incident with the one fire extinguisher that was tossed at random into a crowd of police officers. It ricocheted off a couple of officers until it hit one that did not have his helmet on. He is the one who died a day later – but only after he finished his shift (initially) thinking that he had not been serious hurt.

Other standard misreporting is the attacking with fire extinguisher(s) – plural form. There was only one fire extinguisher ever involved - and it was not used as an attack weapon. Then there is the standard meaningless dribble version of misreporting:

“The crowd was peppered with (a nebulous term obviously) far-right nationalists (Who are they? How are they far-right? And how do we know that you know that – if you cannot specify anything?) military veterans (aren’t there some in every crowd?) militia members (Who are they? What do they believe and practice? And how do we know that you know that – if you cannot specify anything?) and (drum roll, please) adherents of a DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY.” (That tells us one hell of a lot).

It has some accurate reporting – but not that was reported accurately. All riots have people screaming “Kill them all! Kill them all! Let God sort them out – kill them all! And then I am going to kill all of your children and your grandparents!!”

This riot also had that with Pence, Pelosi and others mentioned in the screaming fits. But the only thing that we know – regarding what happened – is that all people that started to act out in a kill mode were intercepted by the other rioters and were restrained from doing it. And while people were picked up later on for curfew violations none of them (that we know of) were on a quest to kill someone’s children and grandparents.

The one good thing that is coming out of the reporting is that it demonstrates how little was known at the time about what was going on – and is still not known now. Even at 2:30 pm (well over one and a half hours after the initial commotion started): “But no one on the House side yet understood the size of the crowd or the gravity of the situation, McGovern said.”

McGovern is the last Congressman to be escorted away. But now he ‘knows’ that the President was totally informed by this time, that he was totally in control of the situation and that he had his MAGA cap on, was waving a Trump flag as he was eating popcorn watching the TV - and that he was rooting for the “insurrectionists”. Or so he claims.

But I will do one bit of kudos: they did finally get into in-depths reporting on the rioter that was shot. And, surprisingly, the reporter even allowed some real mystery thinking to be permissible (I thought that this is always supposed to be right wing John Birchite conspiracy mongering): “As they moved in, they got a clear view of the lieutenant on the other side, who was raising his .40-caliber Glock handgun.

“There’s a gun” “He’s got a gun!” people shouted. In the thick of the action, a man wielding the helmet broke out the windowpane in front of Babbitt. A few seconds later, someone tried to hoist her through.”

Possible infiltration by troublemakers? It at least raises the possibility. Important side point however: the police officer was right to take the shot. Further, he was also playing it very smart to make a threat to the effect of “Does anyone else want to get shot?” Always remember: we are not pro-mob, pro-riot or pro-chaos. There was a mob on the one side of a barrier - and a small strategic choke point that they would have to go through to get to the other one. If he failed at deterring the others from going through (ending a rampage before it could get started) he may well have had to use all 31 rounds, with all other armed officers firing all their rounds as well. Thus, we say again: we do not minimize what happened that day. But we are not trying to exploit it either - as the Left is.

And this is probably the best way to wind down the “Insurrection(?) Diaries” on every Thursday. It is firm in my mind that there was no insurrection and I now have some expert information to help clarify the issues:

J - - - P - - - - -, Lifetime security and loss control professional.

The Capitol, like all other federal buildings, is protected by a federal agency known as FPS - The Federal Protective Service. This agency oversees the set-up, installation, and monitoring, of all kinds of security hardware, including closed circuit television systems.

Yes, the Capitol has an extensive AND expensive CCTV system throughout the exterior and interior of the Capitol. I cannot divulge where these cameras are monitored, or how much manpower monitors them - for obvious reasons.

In addition to the pictures taken of the rioters who took over the Capitol on January sixth, by news media, independent photographers, and cell phone cameras, there is an official video record of everything that went on that day, courtesy of the FPS’s video camera system. These cameras are in all of the usual places around the Capitol, entries and exits, hallways, etc., and they are easily recognizable, and in plain sight.”

So, there you have it. This shows there is video for everything. And last week, I showed how the FBI was intercepting all two-way radio traffic. Therefore, if someone makes any accusation, whatsoever, they are required to cough up the video/audio information that backs it up. Such back up exists if something did, indeed, happen.

Thus, if it is not caught dead to rights in this way, then it did not happen. There were a lot of people behaving badly with some behaving more badly than others. But there was no insurrection and nothing like this (the audio/video backup) has been coughed up (proving it) because this audio/video does not exist. And this audio/video does not exist because it did not happen.

The new Thursday feature that I will start doing will be called The Reichstag Diaries. This refers to what I mentioned earlier: the historical reference to the burning of the Reichstag political gambit. Where such an event was used by Hitler to set up his dictatorship.

This is a real event going on – rather than a fictitious event about Trump supporters doing “Insurrections” and needing to be re-educated out of their “personality cult”. The first installment begins next Thursday.



   I will let you decide for yourself but I stated my own choice for who are even a lower caliber of people than are "insurrectionists". Now, as always, we want nothing to do with any type of rioters but those who want to do a repeat of The Burning of the Reichstag gambit are still the worst threat of the hour. Keep that in mind.
   And, as I always say: Get more involved and join more of the discussions. See you out at the Quora site?

The Brief Overview: The slow-walk of the vaccine continues. Democrats claim to believe in every nutbag number that comes out. And that 4,000 people are dying per day. Yet: My 78 year old wife was just told to walk past an injection site - with the vaccine available there - because they are doing it by appointment only.

  I have a close friend in California who is now in the ICU with the coronavirus. His turn had arrived, there has been, and still is, plenty of vaccine available in his area but they are only doing vaccines by appointments in California also. So, he managed whether 10 months of total dictatorship along with the virus - and he may now die with the vaccine available to him and left sitting on the shelf.

  This is what you get when you use the 'science' crowd and the 'data-drivens' to run anything. What you should use them for is to develop the necessary data and to collect the needed information. YOU then run everything using that information and - pardon my bluntness - but you don't even want to trust them to wipe their own butts. If you don't believe me then ask my friend from Fresno - if he lives that is.

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 01/16/2021 to 01/22/2021) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 01/16/2021  983 vs. 3464 (John Hopkins) vs. 3891 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 01/17/2021  1799 vs. 1799 (John Hopkins) vs. 3671 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 01/18/2021 1076 vs. 1409 (John Hopkins) vs. 3557 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 01/19/2021  1947 vs. 2753 (John Hopkins) vs. 1947 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 20/13/2021 1393 vs. 4236 (John Hopkins) vs. 1567 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 21/14/2021  1400 vs. 4221 (John Hopkins) vs. 2280 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 01/22/2021  1525 vs. 3728 (John Hopkins) vs. 4368 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 21,610 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 21,281 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 10,122 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,446 deaths per day. Again, it was 
no where near the daily media hype that runs at more than twice that level. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 397,359
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 409,821
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 234,971


   MSM (MainStream Media) ‘reporting’ Saturday 01/16/2021:

1) A long diatribe about all types of people with training, radios, tactics etc. You are then left to assume things – all of which are false. Not one video shows anyone acting out in a planned, organized purpose. Nor are there any videos of these quasi ‘commando’ types doing anything that involves planning or organizing others into an insurrection.

For example, there was a very military looking type of people who did a ‘Ranger File’ maneuver for a “stacking up” to breach. It is a good question to think about. But more telling is that they then vanished out of the entire equation. There are no videos of their further involvement in the rioting after them (apparently) getting inside the structure. So where did they go to? And what were they about? Why assume they were among the rioters in the first place – where is the evidence?

2) The usual out-of-context insinuations: The paper says, “stout poles later used to bash police officers”. Wrong. A small group of rioters attempted to bash police with their “stout poles”. It was broken up by the other rioters.

“He means to kidnap, restrain, perhaps try, perhaps execute(?) members of the U.S. Government.” All from a commando-ish looking rioter who had zip ties. There was no other basis for such a statement. It is also why the prosecutor had to pull all this type of language out of his paperwork – because it is based on no actual evidence.

The rest of the ‘coverage’ talks about horrible language used by some of the rioters, horrible intentions expressed etc. But here is the what-actually-happened tally:

  1. a) Three incidents, so far that I have become aware of, of “insurrectionists” interceding for police officers that were imperiled
  2. b) Two incidents, that I have become aware of, of “insurrectionists’ attacking people with the intent to do bodily harm but checked by
  3. c) Two incidents, that I have become aware of, of these same “insurrectionists” interrupting said attacks and
  4. d) many, many incidents of the “insurrectionists” being permissive of police presence. The Atlantic magazine, who are left wing fanatics trying to build a case for insurrections, incitements etc. have not even been aware of how they are refuting their own arguments.

They keep writing long articles about what happened - but are unable to tell their story without having to reference numerous cordial meetings between the police and the “insurrectionists”. In the Pelosi office ransacking the leader of that pack of five is just looking around at random hoping to find something (brilliant planning and organization: I guess he assumed she would have a manuscript in the middle of her desk “My Game Plan to Subvert America by Nancy P. Pelosi”). At the door is a police officer suggesting that they should leave: “In just a second, Officer, I am almost done here.” (Really boffo insurrectionism – and well planned as well???)

MSM ‘reporting’ Saturday 01/17/2021:

“Just as striking, a number of mainline conservatives in the House are speaking openly about how much Trump has damaged himself in the aftermath of the election, culminating with his role in inspiring the riots.”

Interestingly, Sunday was about the most objective day they have done in a long time. They said ‘riots’ rather than an Insurrection. They said “inspire” rather than “incite”. And they did do a full-page report (some would call it a whitewash) on a John Sullivan – but at least they covered him. At least now when Trump supporters talk about him and the question of infiltrators subverting the rallies, people will at least know who we are talking about. (Unlike Hunter Biden where the MSM did a calculated communications blackout and never even allowed the public to be aware of the controversy involved at all.)

Some commentary on the Fourth Estate, isn’t it? We are supposed to be thankful to God when they will even acknowledge the existence of a controversy – rather than not cover it at all. But both Sunday stories I read were a whitewashed coverage – even though there was coverage. In the quote I gave it shows, first a bias, and then a whitewash for the Political Establishment.

“… culminating with his role in inspiring the riots”. Assumes facts not in evidence. “Have you stopped beating a racist yet?” Standard fare for MSM coverage. But the whitewash for the Establishment: what follows is the most important untold story of this generation:

Trump was totally shut down by both the people who control the media - and by those who controlled the issues of his election contest. It is because they are both the same clique of people working for the same purposes. Trump found out, the hard way, how few allies he really has in the Establishment – Republican or Democrat. Thus, the “mainline conservatives” and their (ostensibly) new talk about dumping Trump overboard.

The problem is that they have only wanted to do this since his name was even first floated as a candidate. It is not new talk. It is only because the rank and file have gone to Trump that they have even been tolerating him at all. Mitch McConnell is even talking about how “his role in inspiring the riots” is going to necessitate him purging out all the Trumpism out of the Republican party. And, of course, only because it will necessitate him doing this.

Not because he has wanted to do this since Trump was first coming down the elevator on his way to his first day as President. Thus, the untold story: you have heard how - even as he was coming down the elevator - the Democrats were talking about impeaching him. The untold part is how McConnell and the Establishment Republicans were standing right behind them figuring out how to minimize his influence on the party to begin with. And, if that failed, how to purge it out later.

Thus, be prepared for the world’s worst nightmare – Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi having a common purpose. The one, and only one, thing that you can know for sure – in such an instance – is that they are the only two people in the entire planet who will gain from it. And all the rest of us – that are in between the two – will be getting violated through our hurt zones.

MSM ‘reporting’ Saturday 01/18/2021:

Back to their old colors again. After spending one day saying only “riots” they are back on the “Insurrection” band wagon again. And the other tricks of their craft, i.e., narrative telling – not journalism. The summation: someone named an Ali Alexander is ascribed many very evil sounding quotes – and that he might have made throughout his entire life. There is no context to what he is saying and there is no verification or video clips accompanying any of it.

The ‘narrative’ then switches to Trump person after Trump person being involved in setting up the rally. And how do these dots connect? They do not – nor did their narrative-telling ever try to do a logical connection. It starts with a cesspool coverage of Mr. Alexander, talks about the others setting up the rally – reminds us that the rally went bad at some point in time – and you are supposed to draw the connection to …. what???

This was the only significant coverage today – except that it did not have any significance. If Mr. Alexander was being quoted accurately – and he acted out on his words – then why isn’t he in jail right now? He is not. And what was the connection between him, and the other people mentioned? None was made except that they were all involved in the rally. News Flash: When the 9/11 planes were hijacked there were other passengers on the planes that were also ‘involved’ in the flights.


MSM ‘reporting’ Saturday 01/20/2021:

The truth be told, the MSM reporting could have been good on this day. There was a hopeful article that some of the bad actors might be getting identified. And I have no disagreement here. I have never said that there were not some terribly bad actors involved – there were. But most of the rioters were just people acting badly. Those are always two different types of people in a riot (whether the rioters are to the left or the right): the mass of the people who are acting badly and the terribly bad actors with more malign plans involved.

And they found three people who seem to fit the bill for the bad actors category: they had pre-planning involved, were well organized and had some specific malign goals. But this is why you can never trust the MSM. They had to go after a political agenda. The three organized people were still (somehow?)Trump’s responsibility. He should be impeached for making a speech that ‘incited’ people – but he is also responsible for people who were already planning something long before the speech as well.

And then their handling of the three people involved. They co-mingle unattributed quotes with their own opinions - and you are supposed to not notice that and assume they are all the same things. Then they make a claim that these people’s communications were intercepted, and they have a lot of ominous quotes. But there are two problems:

The quotes, even in their worst light, show that there could not have been more than a couple of dozen people at the riot who had any idea what they were doing. Thus, there was no ‘insurrection’. It is true that there was a riot and that everyone that was there was acting badly. And I am sure it is also true that there were some genuinely bad actors. But nothing about the article contradicts what I have always maintained.

This is also why you must pay attention to the literally true statements of most MSM reporting: “… suggested that the riot was not an entirely impulsive outburst of violence, but an event instigated or exploited by organized groups.” In other words, their words are saying nothing. But the specifics (of what is supposed to be intercepted word-for-word quotes) are ludicrous when you get down to the actual details. One person, a Jessica Watkins, is one of the three bad actors identified. However, she maintains the following: “I didn’t commit a crime. I did not destroy anything. I didn’t wreck anything.” She also maintained that it was intended to be a peaceful siege that turned violent. And the (ostensibly) intercepted messages seem to suggest bad things - but are flatly contradicted by reality.

The alleged intercepts say that people were going in a directed, coordinated manner towards the places where our leaders were. Except that there is no video recording of anyone doing this. REMEMBER: everything on the 6th has a video recorded record for it. If it is not caught on video, then it did not happen. But then there are ludicrous parts referred to earlier:

“We are in the main dome right now. We are rocking it. They are throwing grenades(?), they are fricking shooting people with paint balls(?)”. What the hell??? No one did an insurrection with a paint ball gun. And no one threw any damn grenades around during a crowded riot. One police officer was killed (inadvertently) by a thrown object and one citizen was killed by gunfire from an officer.

How many were killed by grenades? Do you know of a bloodless way to lob grenades into a crowd? So, what in the hell are they even talking about? To emphasize: these rambling were supposed to be intercepted quotes of their two way radio conversations. But what is being said is a total make believe fantasy. So who is hosing us? Is it the people doing the talking on the radios? Was that a setup? Is it the FBI - or both parties?Who knows?

The only sensible thing that came out of this week was Diane Feinstein. She knows history: Hayes vs. Tilden, the 1876 election. Rutherford B. Hayes did the identical election contest process that Trump did. But with one difference – he was successful, and democracy was not, in fact, subverted by the process. She also knows basic democratic values.

The “moderate” Senator Manchin believes that any Senator who engaged in the totally legal and constitutional election contest should be expelled from the Senate. That is, you should be expelled from the Senate for acting legally. And for acting in a way that has a legal precedent - and was done in that same way before. Diane Feinstein is willing to vehemently disagree with that.

And that is about all that there is for good news this week. With the exception, of course, that there was a riot but there is no insurrection, there is no domestic terrorism and there is no truth to whatever it is you are being fed from the complete and total liars that make up the MSM.


  This week I think we should look at just another example of elitism. Big Tech (and its' sycophants) feel that there are no First Amendment issues involved with what they are doing - and simply because they don't work for the Government. And, as to the right or wrong issues of what they are doing (even if there were no First Amendment ones) they could care less. Mr. Baranski is another one of those Overlords of Social Media who like to Lord their position over others.
   The link below will take you to the first question on his page about Trump being censored by Big Tech. He gives his view and I give mine (Mark Christie comments). Decide for yourself about our views. But note what he also does: in response to my post about social media censoring people - he had me censored!!! Also, take a look at someone named Matthew Schuyler - someone I expressed my concerns about. It is these Overlords of the Social Media that are the most dangerous to democracy - not Trump supporters who still feel entitled to have their free speech rights.
   And, as I always say: Get more involved and join more of the discussions. See you out at the Quora site?

The Brief Overview: A brief "Brief Overview" today. We encourage you, again, not to buy into what you are being told - on the virus or other apocalyptic news items. And a special note on the "Insurrection" lie: they can even lie with video clips - it depends on how they are cherry picked. The general rule: the longer (and unedited) the video clip, the more it shows people doing something that they should never have done - but the less it shows anyone 'insurrecting'.

  There was no insurrection, there was no conspiracy by Trump and his allies (there was just free speech) - just as there were no days with mega thousands of deaths in it from the virus. The faked up virus numbers (and the faked up election, faked up 'Insurrection', etc) are all just the same thing. They are the work of the real Insurrectionists and how they will keep doing everything they can to destabilize America and to make us more afraid - so that we will keep agreeing to be made less free.

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 01/09/2021 to 01/15/2021) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 01/09/2021  1213 vs. 3150 (John Hopkins) vs. 4176 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 01/10/2021  1744 vs. 1744 (John Hopkins) vs. 3599 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 01/11/2021 1481 vs. 1932 (John Hopkins) vs. 3418 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 01/12/2021  2071 vs. 4228 (John Hopkins) vs. 2071 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 01/13/2021 1672 vs. 4426 (John Hopkins) vs. 1954 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 01/14/2021  1797 vs. 3708 (John Hopkins) vs. 4117 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 01/15/2021  1519 vs. 3766 (John Hopkins) vs. 4076 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 22,954 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 23,411 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 11,497 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,642 deaths per day. Again, it was 
no where near the daily media hype that runs at more than twice that level. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 350,664
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 347,606
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 225,190


To begin with: The Insurrection hyping is just as unreliable as the Covid hyping. All throughout the Trump Administration the Resistance (and their flunky media allies) have continuously accused Trump of planning to do things that they, themselves, have actually been doing:

1) The DOJ has been weaponized to prosecute Trump supporters; Trump has merely responded to his enemies with nasty tweets.

2) The President has done nothing to interfere with the Press and all other citizens right to speak; while they have, effectively, set up a well-organized communications blackout against someone who is still a democratically elected President.

3) The same party that accuses Trump with complicity with rioters, supported rioters throughout all last year - until a Don Lemon said, “Your polls are slipping”. And – for reals – within virtually one hour both Biden and Harris said a lukewarm denouncement against the rioters for their very first time. (Check it out yourself – that is the way that it actually happened.)

They do it – and then accuse the President of planning to do it. If they are accusing Trump of Insurrection then they, most likely, are doing that also. The election was a complete sham – and the only reason it worked is because Trump did not have as many allies as he thought he did. Many State Governors (in Arizona and Georgia) are never-trumper Republicans and wanted Biden to win.

Many GOP State legislators would have liked to help Trump but were not given enough to work with: most of the court proceedings involved denying Trump the right to demand a transparent process and get to look at all the records. And then denying Trump motions for a lack of definitive evidence. And because all the media outlets shut Trump off the air waves - and have kept him in a blackout - he cannot get any traction with the average voter.

But, per the usual, it is not what they are doing that is causing the unrest; it is just supposed to be what Trump is saying. It reminds me of an actual, narcissistic conversation of a Democrat Congresswoman. She stated, in all seriousness, that between her insisting on unfettered abortions - and the other guest on the show proving that an infant in the womb is a human life – that it could cause more abortion clinic violence. Therefore, she said, the other person should stop proving that an infant in the womb is a human life! For reals – they do something and then blame others for the violence if they complain about what they have done.

The violence is caused by what dictatorial politicians have been doing throughout most of all last year. The lock downs, the aiding and abetting of rioters, the criminalizing of political differences, the unethical election year practices that all Democrat Party Machinery big cities do during every election – not just the last one. This is where the provocation is coming from – not from other people complaining about it in speeches.

Now as to the Burning of the Reichstag reference: this was the ultimate deflection that Adolph Hitler used to put the end to democratic rule. He orchestrated the Burning of the Reichstag (the equivalent of our Congressional buildings) and then used it as the basis to set up his dictatorship. And this is what is being done now by the Democrats.

Point One: do not take my word on it that there has, effectively, been an orchestrated communications black out against someone who is still a democratically elected President. Below are other World leaders, of all political parties (and just as many who do not like Trump as that do) all denouncing censorship – but done AGAINST Trump rather than BY Trump:

World Leaders Denounce Big Tech Censorship of President Donald Trump

By Victoria Kelly-Clark

January 12, 2021

Political elites worldwide have criticized big tech companies for banning President Donald Trump from their social media platforms. At present, the president has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Snapchat, Reddit, and Instagram. Twitter permanently removed Trump’s account, saying that his recent posts were in violation of the “Glorification of Violence Policy.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Twitter’s ban on Trump “problematic,

” and said that freedom of opinion is an essential right of “elementary significance,” her spokesperson, Steffen Siebert, said on Jan 11. “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators—not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” Siebert said.

“Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked,” he said.

Members of the French government agreed. Clement Beaune, the junior minister for European Union affairs, said he was “shocked” a private company made this kind of decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire also condemned the move and said that tech giants were part of a digital oligarchy that was a threat to democracy.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party—a centre-right political party—echoed Beaune and called for Big Tech firms to be regulated. “We cannot leave it to American Big Tech to decide how we can or cannot discuss online. Today’s mechanisms destroy the compromise searching and consensus-building that are crucial in free and democratic societies. We need a stricter regulatory approach,” he wrote on Twitter on Jan. 11.

Meanwhile, Norway’s left-wing Labor Party leader Jonas Gahr Støre said that Big Tech censorship threatens political freedom around the world. He said Twitter needs to apply the same standard globally that it did to Trump. “This is a line where freedom of expression is also at stake,” said Støre. “If Twitter starts with this sort of thing, it means that they have to go around the world and look at other people completely astray and shut them out.”

The Australian government has also called the ban on Trump an act of “censorship.” Acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack said, “There’s been a lot of people who have said and done a lot of things on Twitter previously that haven’t received that sort of condemnation or indeed censorship. I’m not one who believes in that sort of censorship.”

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he was uncomfortable with Twitter’s ban on Trump. “Those decisions were taken by commercial companies, but personally, I felt uncomfortable with what they did,” he said. Quoting Voltaire’s famous line: “I may not agree with what you say, but I defend the right to say it,” Frydenberg said that freedom of speech is fundamental to a democratic society.

Fellow Liberal Party member and senator, Alex Antic, said he will push for a Senate Select Committee into Big Tech’s influence and censorship of political ideas when the Australian Parliament resumes next month. Antic told The Epoch Times on Jan. 12 that he is concerned that Big Tech can so easily censor one side of the debate. “Our democratic process is founded on our ability to share ideas freely and to be exposed to challenging and opposing viewpoints. It is crucial to the integrity of that process that Big Tech companies do not censor one side of the debate,” Antic said.

Mexican President Manuel López Obrador also echoed his global counterparts, with Reuters reporting that he said it was a bad sign when private companies try to censor opinion. Obrador said a “court of censorship like an inquisition to manage public opinion.” “I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the right to post a message on Twitter or Face(book),” he said.

In Russia, the opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, who is an outspoken anti-corruption campaigner, said he believed the ban was an unacceptable form of censorship and was based not on a genuine need but rather Twitter’s political preferences. In a thread posted on the platform on Jan. 10, Navalny said: “Don’t tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone.”

He noted that this pattern had been seen before in both Russia and China when big companies utilize their position to become a government best friend and enabler when it comes to state-based censorship laws. “This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: ‘this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter,'” he wrote on Twitter."

End of Article.

Free World Leaders all around the Globe are paying attention to what is going on – and do not like what they are seeing. So, I strongly recommend that my fellow citizens - who are going to have to live in this country - pay at least as much attention to our problem here as many outsiders are.

There has always been but one, and only one, reason that forces within a country have organized a communications blackout against an existing government. And it is not a good reason – and I do not think people should even need to be told what that reason is. (The only way, for example, to hear about both sides of the Stolen Election issue is to watch something called One America News or to subscribe to something called The Epoch Times).

But it does not stop with the President. It started with an Alex Jones being stripped from off the Internet. (Note: I do not buy into very much of what he says, but why shouldn’t he still be allowed to say it?) He was then subjected to a political prosecution – the criminalizing of political differences.

Rush Limbaugh was booted off the air. Parler, an opinion platform, took notice of the censorial practices of the other social media outlets and set up its own platform that does not censor people. But guess what? They just got censored!!! And pay attention again to what the impeachments have been about:

Neither of them followed due process and the first was about a thought crime. It conceded the President’s actions were not illegal. But based on one sentence (in an 87-page conversation) Pelosi inferred something (that the President was supposed to have thought) based on something he said in just the one sentence. And the present impeachment is just more of the same whatnot-ola: it is based on something he said not on anything he actually did.

And the reporting about the ‘Insurrection’? I have personally watched the video clips for all three of the alleged violent acts: an ‘attack’ with a fire extinguisher, dragging an officer down the stairs and the officer being crushed. None of them show what is being alleged to have happened.

The ‘attack’ with the extinguisher involved someone who threw one out into the police officers (clearly a random, unaimed toss). One police officer happened to have his helmet off, it hit him in the head, and he did not even feel he was injured at the time. He later collapsed after he got back to his office, see below:

See it for yourself: do not take my word on it.

In the dragging incident: most of the protestors took no part in anything (one way or the other). And only a small group of people grabbed the officer but here is the proverbial “rest of the story”: a larger group saw what was happening, intervened to rescue the officer and directed the others to get back. Finally, this area where people were trying to encroach into the building was also stabilized by a Trump protestor: he got himself into the middle of the window opening, put out a crutch sideways to block entry into the window opening and, apparently, had the support of the officers who stopped whacking at him and allowed him to do what he did, see below:

See it for yourself: do not take my word on it

In the crushing incident: the crushing happened inadvertently. When the officer screamed and notified everyone what was going on it was the protestors who came to his relief. A woman next to him (who was also pinned) can be seen being concerned about him, a protestors voice can be heard saying “back away from him” and all the protestors backed away and came to his relief.

See it for yourself: do not take my word on it

And that is it. But pay attention: the capitol area is covered by cameras all throughout. EVERYTHING that happened throughout the entire day is covered by video. And that is the best they can do: 5 minutes’ worth of video that show zip of ‘Insurrection’? Also, Fox was the only news that even tried to show the videos at more full length for a better context. No other journalists even allowed these videos to go to a needed length to show both sides. In the last case, you (apparently) see a mob getting sadder and wiser and even allowing the officers to reclose the doors. A bunch of real high-powered insurrectionists???

But now for the other side of the argument: and again, see it for yourselves.

Trump protestors STOPPING the Violence?

How do you make an Unlawful Entry if the Police Invite you in – and Provide an Escort?

Watch for this Part of the Video: “Dozens of Others” Breached the Capitol???

Well … pardon my bluntness but Insurrection my ‘donkey’. Did you pick up on the “with DOZENS of others” regarding the breach? And what if the only people who did a successful breach were the ones who were let in? How can this be an insurrection if only dozens of people who were there (out of many thousands) did any breaching – and many of them might have been let in voluntarily? And why would these Insurrectionist breachers keep coming to the rescue of imperiled officers – and attempting to block violence from rioters - while they are engaged in their efforts to violently take over the United States?

So, we will now get to the money part of this article. How do I know this is going to be manipulated into a Burning of the Reichstag type of an incident? I have talked about a well-coordinated communications blackout, the hyping of an Insurrection - where it is clear that none  exists. But how do I know that they are going to act out like my historical reference to the Great Deflection of all times – Hitlers Reichstag caper of 1933? I know this because they are saying so directly:

"Pressure is mounting on the Republican members of Congress who associated themselves with "far-right extremist groups" in the days leading up to the attack". That's a full mouth full of garbage: "associated" precisely how? Can you give a specific name of one of these groups and then demonstrate their "far right extremist" nature? Can you state the evidence as to which specific ones of these may have had anything to do with the rioting? So that the "association" question is even relevant?

"Several of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters, including Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both of Arizona, have been accused of helping plan the Jan. 6 rally that led to the attack on the Capitol." Say what?? What in the Holy Hell does planning a rally have to do with planning a riot?? Unless you are practicing McCarthyism? This is to be expected from modern day journalists but modern day politicians are now just as bad.

Congressman Jim Crow (a former Army Captain – and now the real present time Insurrectionist):

“To the extent there were members of the House that were complicit, and I believe there were (while citing zip for evidence), we will pursue appropriate remedies, including expulsion and a prohibition from holding elective office for the rest of their lives,” Crow said in an interview. “They will of course be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution if that’s what the facts of the investigation show.”

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (a former Navy pilot – and now the real present time Insurrectionist):

“The tours on the eve of the riot came to light after Rep. Mikie Sherrill D-N.J., a former Navy pilot, said Tuesday night on Facebook, without offering evidence, that she knew members of Congress who gave ‘reconnaissance’ tours to rioters before the attack. (Beg pardon, but were you eavesdropping on their conversations? And if so, why won’t you just tell us specifically what they said that you base your opinions on?)

“Those members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on Jan. 5, a reconnaissance for the next day, (Beg pardon again - but does this come from a successful eavesdropping that you did at the time?) those members of Congress that incited this violent crowd (stated as a fact???), Sherrill said, “those members who attempted to help our president undermine our democracy (stated as fact???), I’m going to see they’re held accountable.”

Oh really? Journalists have all done 30-second investigations to conclude that everything about the President’s election contest is baseless. So, I guess it will not threaten democracy anymore if Congressmen now do 30-second investigations before coming to Sherrill’s conclusions. Hopefully, our court system is still intact except that it should not need it.

I have been through all the video about the much ballyhooed ‘Insurrection’. And the only hearings we need are competency hearings for Crow and Sherrill. They are both a pair of nut jobs and are off their rockers!


  This week I think we should look at a reasonable question that Doran Williams of the Doran Williams Show asked about people surrendering their rights over Covid. My answer is there in the Quora forum. But I want you to look at the response of a Richard Greco - and my reply back. (To see Greco, hit the tag for the 17 other answers).
  There is a possible problem here, however. Good liberal types are getting harder and harder to find. Leftist types (like Greco) are, unfortunately, becoming their replacement. So you may need to hurry to see my reply - before he deletes it out of the Quora Forum. This is what most Leftists now do out at the forum debate - they make personal insults to any and all dissenters and then delete their replies out.
   But maybe we should be more tolerant of this. Maybe they are just so much more enlightened than all of the rest of us that they can't see or hear other views without going insane. And I suppose we wouldn't want them to lose their sanity by listening to people who are closer to the center of the aisle politically than they are. Here is this Tuesday's Quora link:

The Brief Overview: This week I will use the example of the Bell Curve to demonstrate where the deception is. Our epidemic curve looked like a Bell Curve on the up side of the epidemic. But, if you recall, it was right before the inflection point where the new surges came in like a bolt from the blue - and in a physically impossible set of numerical configurations. Now the down side doesn't even have the slightest resemblance to a Bell Curve - but that is natural scientific law! All natural processes tend to work in a Bell Curve. Ergo, you don't even have to crunch the numbers: just look at the graph of our epidemic. You should know it is garbage just by looking at it. Thus, we encourage you, again, not to buy into what you are being told.

   Point 1) Always remember the new truth 'formula': no common decency exists in the political process anymore. Therefore it will have to be the average person's common sense that will have to be the only available check.

Point 2) Again, the case numbers vs. common sense. It is not physically possible for the amount of daily case numbers they are talking about to be actually occurring. We are talking about 2,000, 000 new cases every week if they are being accurate. The only way that this is in the realm of physical possibility is for: the epidemic to be at full throttle; to be in the dense central zones of several major cities; and all  simultaneously. Until someone tells you exactly where the physical locations are supposed to be for these cases then you are being given pure crap.

  3) We are 3 weeks into the vaccination program with 14 million doses already sent out. And the death toll is still shooting up like a rocket ship? But also with point 2) in mind. If we are really having 2,000, 000 new cases every week - and in the dense central zones of several major cities - then why aren't they sending all of these vaccines into these hot zones? ("Trump is such a dummy" doesn't cut it - the U.S. Military logistics teams are running the show and they are immaculately on the ball with what they do and how they do it.) Wise up; you're being fed it!

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 01/02/2021 to 01/08/2021) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 01/02/2021  1295 vs. 2078 (John Hopkins) vs. 3396 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 01/03/2021  1351 vs. 1351 (John Hopkins) vs. 2201 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 01/04/2021 1519 vs. 1951 (John Hopkins) vs. 2302 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 01/05/2021  1407 vs. 3700 (John Hopkins) vs. 1407 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 01/06/2021 1466 vs. 3948 (John Hopkins) vs. 1791 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 01/07/2021  1212 vs. 3978 (John Hopkins) vs. 3533 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 01/08/2021  1519 vs. 3914 (John Hopkins) vs. 3825 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 20,920 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 18,455 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 9,770 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,396 deaths per day. Again, it was 
no where near the daily media hype that runs at more than twice that level. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 343,286
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 337,810
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 213,694

   I know: my last Thursday blurb seemed apocalyptic (to the max). But maybe a kinder, gentler approach will still make the same basic points. So, I will lead in with a question – that leads to a kinder, gentler lesson. So, again, the question of the Blurb title: whatever happened to a Lawrence Rainey?

Nowadays, most people might not know who I am talking about. But do you remember the recent movie “Mississippi Burning”? He was the (presumably) Mr. Evil character in the true historical event that the movie is based on.

Synopsis: Four civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 and became the starting point of a national incident. The person we are writing about, Lawrence Rainey, was the sheriff at the time where the incident happened. His role has never been clearly determined.

It is, apparently, well substantiated that he played no direct part in the four murders. Did he just direct it - but not actually participate? However, the ultimate charges were considerably less than that: he may not have even known about it at the time. The charges stated that he obstructed justice and tried to cover up for it after learning about it the next day.

I will leave the ultimate truth (or untruth) of that for more serious researchers to decide. All the rest of us know for sure is that he was acquitted on all counts at the State prosecution. He was retried on federal charges and was, again, acquitted on all counts. But, at least to a considerable degree, he still did not totally “get away with it” – if, that is, he was in fact guilty of something.

Despite relentless efforts to get re-employed in law enforcement, he was too much of a pariah – even for the Deep South and during the Jim Crow era – to ever accomplish it. The best he did was to ultimately wind up as a security guard at a grocery store. To which the modern “social justice warriors” would be outraged! Not at the fact that he could not get a law enforcement job - but that he was able to get any job at all. “Why shouldn’t he have starved to death and/or been made to suffer every day of his life!”

Also, his wife became dejected and unable to cope with their difficulties. She became an alcoholic and they were, ultimately, divorced. To which the modern “social justice warriors” would, again, be outraged. Not by her becoming dejected, an alcoholic and divorced but by ever being such a “feckless c_ _ _” (a term used by a modern ‘comic’ – who is not very funny) and having been willing to marry him in the first place.

And, of course, I have already described the ultimate ‘outrage’ involved. For he did, ultimately, get that job that I mentioned earlier – a security guard position at a grocery store. And, thereby, managed to eke out some type of a living, did not starve to death in the gutter (while sleeping underneath the corner of a bridge) and, apparently, was not subjected to continuous suffering all throughout every day of the rest of his life. All of which will, again, outrage the modern day “social justice” warrior.

Now, did he change – and in a sincere manner – on the inside? How should either I – or you – know that? He started out positioning himself – when he originally ran for Sheriff – as the "man who can cope with situations that might arise". And most people, at the time, seemed to understand what he was talking about. Later, and – perhaps - in an exercise of self-delusion, he did try to re-write his history more benevolently:

“They tried to make it that I hated the black people, and it was just because I had to shoot two, ... Anyone I mistreated in law enforcement made me do it in order of fulfilling my job and duties (…) You got trash in all colors."

Well, despite the rationalizations, I will agree (with most others) that he certainly needed to change – but did he? At least on the outside, yes. His job as a security guard was given to him after the end of the Jim Crow laws. He would have to have been on his good behavior with all customers whether White or Black. And he seemed to have been able to function properly in the new non-racial social order.

He also spoke kindly of his employer – who was Black. And this is where we will get to the main point of today’s blurb. He also spoke kindly of his employer – who was Black.

That is not what is recommended by today’s group of social justice activists. The recently deceased Congressman James Lewis was there during these types of controversies also - as they played out. He was savagely beaten – to the point where even one of the local police officers (no friend to the African American protestors) asked him if he wanted to press charges.

But he declined. Again, this is not what we seem to be seeing out of today’s social justice warriors. Both James Lewis and Mr. Rainey’s Black employer would, today, be getting called Uncle Tom what-nots. And as to the man who beat Lewis (and did change) or Rainey (who may or may not have) the modern social warrior could care less. Never forgive - not never forget.

Hatred, violence, the Cancel Culture and et al are now a new entitlement of the Enlightened Classes. Thus, I am repeating my point from the last Thursday blurb - about the need to re-educate the new young social warriors about what it takes to really be ready to take over the world. But I am doing it by a contrast.

Advocating change from a Christian moral code (like Lewis and Rainey’s Black employer) did is one thing. But being an activist just to be an activist - and because you are fuming with hate and contempt at someone is quite another. The one simply requests inclusiveness – and is merely asking to be a part of that inclusiveness. The other only knows inclusiveness as whatever they think is right – and you must either include yourself into it down to their every thought, word and deed. Or you can just go to Hell.

And I am certain the modern bunch would include the Black employer of Rainey - as well as Rainey himself - in that suggestion. For listen to the whole conversation where the employer, E.E. McDonald, even goes deeper ever deeper into Uncle Tom What-notishness:

“That may be because his current boss—” He’s been better to work for than any white company”—is a black man, E.E. McDonald, owner of McDonald’s Security Guard Service. McDonald, claims Rainey, “said to me, ‘I done made an investigation on you, and I know that all you had to do was forced on you.’”

Rainey blames “the news media” for his poor reputation. “They tried to make it that I hated the black people, and it was just because I had to shoot two,” says the ex-sheriff, whose office was investigated by a grand jury for police brutality. “Anyone I mistreated in law enforcement made me do it in order of fulfilling my job and duties…. You got trash in all colors.” But now we get down to the ‘hideous’ words of McDonald:

“If we as Christian people expect to meet our maker, we are going to have to help each other,” McDonald, a practicing Baptist minister, says of his hiring Rainey. “Sure, I caught a lot of flak…. [but] the way Mr. Rainey feels about me and my family, I’m like his brother. We are brothers according to Christ.”

OH GOD!!! Clearly, the suggested eternal destiny of Rainey must now also apply to McDonald as well?

And, speaking of which, I have no idea (regarding Rainey) on that matter either. The Lord became his ultimate judge in 2002. And neither I, nor the modern social justice warrior, is qualified to be occupying that role.


  This week I think we should look at a debate about censorship - in all of its forms. If you think my Thursday blurb was an over-the-top diatribe then follow this week's free speech link out to Quora. It is all there: the complete lack of understanding on basic issues, not seeing past the issue of the moment and realizing there are still bigger issues that matter also, etc. Here is this Tuesday's Quora link:

The Brief Overview: There continues to be a check on our processes. Our method is to decipher between the different databases and try to find where the falsifications are at. This consistently checks with the short hand formula you were given to work with on the last Saturday round up.

   That formula would have the deaths at around 1400 per day and that is what the daily average is running in our more rigorous methods of deciphering. And we just want to encourage you again not to buy into what you are being told:

   1) The case numbers are still running at many times the expected levels BUT they are also using a new testing scheme that can get false positives at many times what should be the expected levels. A quick summation of it is that it will detect any type of residual virus activity - if, say, you have ever had it. And then it can not distinguish between a current active case and one where someone has already recovered. When you consider how many people there are who have once had it - versus those who currently do - there is virtually no limit on how much it might overstate what is really happening.

   2) The hospitalization numbers for Covid are running at many times the expected levels BUT they have already been caught double counting people who simply have Covid - while they are actually dying from something else. Why can't they do the same type of double-counting when it comes to people being hospitalized? If  someone is willing to double count deaths then why not hospitalizations also?

  3) We have already talked at length about the inflated death tallies. In my State (Washington) people are literally getting beaten to death with blunt instruments, getting there brains blown out with a gun and then are still double counted into a Covid death - because they also had that too. It is ridiculous; stop letting amoral people destroy your minds with fear - so they can control your life through politics. Now for this weeks numbers ...

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 12/26/2020 to 01/01/2021) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 12/26/2020  1585 vs. 2598 (John Hopkins) vs. 2795 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 12/27/2020  1215 vs. 1215 (John Hopkins) vs. 1692 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 12/28/2020  1585 vs. 1966 (John Hopkins) vs. 2598 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 12/29/2020  1334 vs. 3568 (John Hopkins) vs. 1334 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 12/30/2020 1495 vs. 3812 (John Hopkins) vs. 1779 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 12/31/2020  1073 vs. 3341 (John Hopkins) vs. 3366 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 01/01/2021  1519 vs. 2146 (John Hopkins) vs. 3867 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 15,511 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 18,646 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 9,805 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,401 deaths per day. It was 
no where near the daily media hype that runs at more than twice that level. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 341,202
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 332,225
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 204,104

I will, as I sometimes do, go to something that appears to be off-point as my beginning lines. I have watched how the African-American family has been allowed to deteriorate - and seen the tragic results. While many African-Americans have avoided the fall out, there are many who have not. And, among those who have been victimized by it, it is like you have a very large number of alienated young black men simply acting out against a world that they don't believe in - and are not fitting in with that well. (Examples abound: The "CNN of the Ghetto" type of rap music - I am using a popular Black rappers own words - gang banging, etc.)

Still, even among those who have been victims of the collapse, most of them will still try to somehow make into the supposedly 'normal' world - but often with an underlying grudge or resentment. I believe we live in a world where there is an enormous amount of psychological segregation: on the inside, a lot of African Americans still feel like they are on the outside and looking in. And I do blame a lot (even if not all) of this on the collapse of the African-American family.

  But what about the collapse of the White-American family? The White-American family is nothing to write home to mom about either. Surely it will have some manifestation at some point also, won't it? And how will it manifest itself - assuming that time will eventually come? I will now go back on-point with the original topic of this blurb.
  Here was some 'commentary' (such as it is) about Free Speech:
   "Freedom OF the press is in our Constitution." (No, in point of fact, it is not - it is freedom of speech. The press, per se, is never mentioned. The point being that we all have exactly the same amount of free speech rights - whether you are a member of the Fourth Estate or not.) The writer then went on:
   "You can’t force them to report the stories only you want to see so censorship by the press means nothing."
(Who has ever said anything about forcing them on what to say? I never have. Further, I am also explicit that I want all voices to be heard and that that is my entire complaint. So where does the accusation "report the stories only you want to see" even come from?) But here is where you get to what ought to be a stunning reversal - except that it is a type of thought pattern that is becoming almost common place among people in today's world. He goes on:
   "Telling people that the press is the enemy of the people should be a crime punishable by jail time because only con men grifters would say such a thing." Come again??? To which I then wrote:

  "Every time I get a critic it just keeps making my point ... do you realize you just called for someone to be put in jail for something they might say? Isn’t that the type of censorship that all of us are supposed to be worried about?"

  And we now close this point out with his last insightful comments:

"No one cares about your writing. Go to Twitter."

Wow. Strong logical argumentation. However, he does deserve some credit. I am sure there is a much hotter place he would like me to go to than wherever it is the Twitter's headquarters are located. And he did refrain from saying it directly. Ergo, you must still give credit where credit is due.

But how do we get back to my opening lines about the break-up of the White-American family? This is how. What you are watching here is how the break-up of the White-American family is manifesting itself. Here are the main aspects of what you are seeing:

1) A total inability to understand basic concepts

2) A total unwillingness to even try to understand basic concepts

3) A total inability to understand that there are, sometimes, bigger issues at stake and that there is a need for a long term perspective and

4) A total unwillingness to even try to understand the things mentioned above

All of the items above are supposed to be covered by a proper upbringing:

As to 1) above: The family unit is supposed to be the main method that each generation uses to pass itself down to the next generation. It is supposed to teach the basic concepts, the societal norms and the basic understandings that people need - on why the world needs to work in the way that it does. But our society doesn't seem to be playing things out this way.

As to 2) above: Impulse control and discipline is supposed to be the centerpiece of any good upbringing. You are not supposed to simply react to things and exist strictly in your own emotional bubble. But in regards to them not even having the willingness to try to understand the basics: why can't you simply feel the way that you feel simply because you feel that way - and why should you have to listen to being told anything else? It is because "you are not supposed to simply react to things and exist strictly in your own emotional bubble."

As to 3) above: "It's not all about you, junior!" But why participate in big picture thinking if, instead, you feel that the whole world does, in fact, revolve around you?

   As to 4) above: An attitude of short term gratification is always the tell tale sign of an inappropriate upbringing. You don't WANT the world to work a certain way? You don't WANT other people to crowd in on how you should think? So???
   But there is clearly more at work than just the lack of willingness to follow and/or even understand the most basic concepts. That is: every one gets to speak, every one should then listen to it  - and then everyone should think things through (as deeply and clearly as possible) so they can make up their own minds. But the list of their dysfunctional traits - even in addition to what we have mentioned so far - is nearly endless: there are those who are the intellectual equivalent of being a book burner (the Statue Slayers), the Cancel Culture, the almost new norm involved in just getting your own mob together to start breaking and burning things every time that you see something that you don't like - and my personal favorite: that really fun young White girl. (With the really boffo sense of humor?)
   Do you remember her? She was on live TV: "I think it is just so funny. I would love to see you get trapped inside a building and then all get burned alive! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha." And she said this to a group of police officers! (The fact that she lives in a country where you can say something like that without immediately getting your head blown off doesn't seem to resonate with her?)
  But where do you think these people come from? It is a blunt way of putting it but the unrest started under the pretense of George Floyd - and then left him totally out of the picture almost immediately afterwards. And the worst of the worst in this downfall has been the people I refer to as the Young White Morons. These are the people who did almost all of the dysfunctional things that I have been mentioning. The hapless African-American citizens were not even any main players in the ensuing anarchy (that was just supposed to be about George Floyd?) These are the people who weren't Black and/or Oppressed - and obviously don't have a clue about how to deal with those problems.
  To wit: they went out and started breaking and burning out the neighborhoods that these Black and/or Oppressed people need to live in and survive - and without any of their involvement and/or advanced approval. And it is these Black and/or Oppressed types who are going to be spending the next ten years trying to recover from the Young White Morons one night of "social justice".
   But, again, where do you think these people come from? This is that manifestation I was referring to earlier: "And how will it manifest itself (The break down of the White-American family) - assuming that time will eventually come?" Well, that time has now come and you have just watched the manifestation!
  And I am way more afraid of the manifestations of the break down in the White family structure than I am of the break down in the Black family structure. Correction: I didn't get that right. I am WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more afraid of the manifestation we are getting out of the White family breakdown.
  The Black-American family break down (and, again, I am simply referring to those who have gotten caught up in the fall out from it) just seems to involve a lot of disaffected young people. And running what is their part of the world in a way that mostly harms just themselves. But the Young White Morons crowd intends to run the whole world (and for all of us) - and right in line with their own particular methodologies!
   But before we (totally) blame the lunatics as they are taking over the asylum maybe we need to look elsewhere also? Is it at least possible that the reason that they think the way that they do is ... because no one has been doing their jobs at teaching them how to think otherwise? Just something for us all to consider - as we are waiting for them to start breaking our doors in!


  I try to just keep it analytical - and not personal. If I disagree with someone it is simply because I disagree with someone - or at least that is my intent. See if I handled the BLM matter correctly out on the Quora Forum.

The Brief Overview: A quick recap of some easy formulas for your own calculations. Here are some baseline numbers:

Previous Hospitalization Peak Date: April the 15th
Previous High Hospitalization Number: 59,924
Previous High Death Tally: 2,154

Current Hospitalizations: 120,151

And here is the way to keep your common sense prevailing. It is a conclusively proven fact that you are now 3 times less likely to die in a hospital setting (from Covid) than in April. Therefore:

Current Hospitalizations of 120,151
Equals: 120,151/59,924 or 2.005 times the previous hospitalization peak. But you are now 3 times less likely to have it be lethal so,
The Deaths should equal 2,154 times 2.005 and then to be divided by 3 = 1440 deaths.
This is a good rough hand formula to calculate the deaths oneself. To make it even easier: round the hospitalizations down to the nearest 1,000 (in this case 120,000). Take 1% of that (in this case 1,200) and then multiply that by 1.2. This will also give you the 1,440 deaths but through a simpler process.

  As you go through this weeks numbers below you can see that it is a quick but accurate calculation - and one that is based on common sense. If you are 3 times less likely to die in a hospital - and you only have twice as many hospitalization happening - then why in the blank should you have a greater amount of deaths? Rather than only about 2/3 as many instead? Again, the numbers you are being given are garbage. Trust the ones we are giving you.

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 12/19/2020 to 12/25/2020) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 12/19/2020  1610 vs. 2547 (John Hopkins) vs. 2749 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 12/20/2020  1438 vs. 1438 (John Hopkins) vs. 2996 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 12/21/2020  1661 vs. 1955 (John Hopkins) vs. 2277 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 12/22/2020  1570 vs. 3282 (John Hopkins) vs. 1434 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 12/23/2020 1464 vs. 3346 (John Hopkins) vs. 1754 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 12/24/2020  1370 vs. 2791 (John Hopkins) vs. 2942 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 12/25/2020  1465 vs. 1168 (John Hopkins) vs. 3424 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 16527 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 18567 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 10579 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,511 deaths per day. It was 
no where near the 3,000 per day media hype. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 325,464
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 316,781
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 194,120

My point was intended to be something that everyone should agree with: that censorship is censorship. And if it is done to block out points of view that you don't like then it has little justification. And the negative responses that I got to this almost help to make the point. Two of the three negative responses did censorship in their own right.

The first person blocked all incoming comments - which I can actually respect somewhat. If you just want to spill it out - and are not interested in even hearing a response back - then why not just set up a block to any comments coming back your way? The second one was actually a humorous way to do censorship but it also shows a lot about the whole point too.

Said an Al Nelson "Flummery will be promptly deleted." Well ... pardon my flumming all over you. So sorry. Now what kind of person uses the term "flummery" and makes an initial response of "Pedantic insistance on trying to force the rest of us to join a victimization fantasy that justifies the previouly mentioned ignorance and also hate, inhumanity and privilege?" The response did get more than 100 favorable fan reviews so I guess it is not up to me to judge but .... I think most of us would feel we are reading a foreign language and that we are in need of an interpreter. And if there really are 125 people out there who understood precisely what he was really saying then I guess that keeps me humble.

This is the hoity-toity type of a censor. Which I ultimately don't take overly seriously. And, as the old saying goes, "The heck with you if you can't take a joke." But what was my original offensive material? Here it was:

" ...  The press is the most censorious institution in the country and is its own worst enemy to the First Amendment. For example, when the government does censorship it is to limit what people are allowed to hear so they can control what people think.

   And the current media does, in fact, refuse to run certain types of stories with the deliberate intent of wanting people not to hear about certain things. It is not done for reasons of normal editorial judgment but for ideological reasons - and in the hope of controlling how people will think. It is activist journalism.

  And I am not talking about covering matters in a biased manner. I am talking about blacking out entire stories so that no one even knows of their existence. I have no problems with there being two sides to, say, the Hunter Biden problems but why should anyone, in the government or out, decide whether I am even to know about the matter in the first place?

  How do you make an informed decision minus any information? And yet most people, until the President talked about it in the third debate, had no idea what he was even referring to. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me but I have big problems with people not even being able to know what I have to say in the first place...

   But to go back to the beginning: Government censorship involves them forcing the media to black out certain types of coverage to control how people think. We now have an activism group of journalists who choose, of their own free will, to act that way. To black out all coverage of certain types hoping to control how people think.

  They are doing the same type of behavior as in the government censoring them, they are doing it for the same reasons and with the same results: keeping people in the dark about things they are entitled to at least hear about. The only difference is that we have the bizarre scenario of a media that freely goes along with such a thing without anyone even forcing them to do it. Apart from that there is no difference."

  I guess something about what I said must involve flummerosity. But there was a third dissenter that I thought I would take a try at. He also tended to make my point. He did respond, did not censor or etc. But his response showed the trite answers for people who should still be held accountable. And regarded people (like myself) who no longer respect mainstream journalism as someone who lives off of Big Foot Tabloids was his way of putting it. But I still tried to do a further follow up. Here it was:
  "Therein is Eric’s problem in his own words… The New York Times was caught admitting to an intentional pattern not a decision “not to choose to publish a particular ‘story’” as Eric put it. And we all (including Eric) watched the pattern continue: do you remember the one and only time that they put out a headline that was NOT dis-favorable to the President - and they rescinded their newspapers from off of their racks, re-did another version for that same day’s edition and it was one that removed the ‘offending’ headline (that was protested against).

That was not a “not choose to publish a particular story” and on behalf of doing only “reliable journalism”. It was what we all watched it to be with our own two eyes. But this is not where Eric is failing to do a ‘get’ in the way that it most matters. The most important ‘get’ that Eric (and us all) need to get is the question “who decides what constitutes ‘reliable’ and ‘truthful’ in the first place”?

I don’t give a rat’s butt what Leslie Stahl thinks is truthful and reliable. It is not her job to decide what is truthful and reliable - but ours. Let us hear it all - and from all sides of the controversy - and then Eric and I both will decide for ourselves what constitutes ‘truthful’ and ‘reliable’. Plus, as someone who is at least consistent, I can demonstrate that what I just said has nothing to do with a ‘conservative’ position.

It was, in fact, Mark Zuckerberg’s (of Facebook) original position. It was Kamala Harris who argued for the current position “But what if they lie, lie, lie, lie isn’t it your job to stop them?” At THAT TIME said he - and correctly so - that it was not. That his job was to try, as much as is possible, to just provide the forum for all sides and let everyone decide for themselves what is “lie, lie, lie, lie” and what is ‘truthful’ and/or ‘reliable’. Mark Z. originally took my exact position before changing it...."

And so ended my correspondence with one of the critics. And, maybe, you are just as well off sometimes taking a second run at the people who do do the censorship. (And maybe even the ones of the hoity-toity variety?) I thought it was an attempt at reason BUT the response was pure F-bombs and et al - and with a failure to even address the more overall point. He stayed fixated strictly on the particular examples of Zuckerberg and the NY Times and paid little attention to the overall logic of the matter.

No one is disagreeing that every newspaper (or TV news show) needs an editor and that the editor has an ultimate responsibility to decide what goes out. But that is not even on point with my points: journalism threatens its own First Amendment when it deliberately sets out to use its position to misinform rather than to inform. And, even though I mentioned that the NY Times was just one example, the point still doesn't seem to get made with a lot of people who can't accept how far astray from normalcy our society - and its institutions - has become. And that the Fourth Estate is very near the front of the line for dysfunctionality.

Though it will (most likely) still not help with this particular crowd, I will do one more example. And this example did involve an instance where every single news organization (of the mainstream media) got caught in the act of what I just said. A 'press conference' was called that - literally - was a deliberate prop (by every mainstream journalism group) to suck up to Joe Biden and prop up his candidacy. Each 'journalist' had a written out question that they were to ask - and Biden had a written out note for each of these questions.

We know this to be true because it was watched live on national TV. Biden kept fumbling through notes to get a coherent answer out to each question. Finally, there was one person who had the self-respect not to act as a prop for some other person. A BLMer said that she was given a piece of paper with a question on it to ask him but she felt that her question was more important. And when he tried to answer it, it became apparent why he needed the props! And, again, there are other staged conferences where he was caught going through notes and did verbal slips about which reporters he was supposed to go to next! They can be seen live for anyone who wants to see it for themselves.

   This is not a joke. It is not journalists "choosing not to cover a particular story". It is not an editor simply trying, in good faith, to do his job at editing. It is this type of thing that is the stuff of a 'putsch' - not the stuff that Trump is doing. When you see stuff like this happening you need to get your blank together and be aware that the you-know-what is going to be hitting the fans very shortly. And, since multi-billionaires do not orchestrate such endeavors on behalf of people who are for the average American, it will be the working class people who will wind up with the face full of what-not - not the limousine liberals who are doing this type of orchestrating!
  And, to answer the more hoity-toity members of this group, if that makes me a flummerist (or whatever people like that are even talking about) then so be it!


   I accept that some people have horrific feelings towards Trump. But why take such a harmless statement - that represents some of the best instincts of our religious traditions - as the latest spring board to excoriate him? At least some people even have an antipathy towards a lot of the religious traditions of the country also. But check it out for yourself:

The Brief Overview: The brief overview will be particularly brief today. As an article below says, our society is totally out of common decency so we are just left with our common sense as our last tool. At this point in the epidemic: Haven't most of the elder care facilities gotten their act together by this time? All the evidence is that they have. Similarly, since vulnerable people outside of care facilities now have curbside pickup and numerous other means to stay safe do you really think they have not figured that out yet - even though their lives are, literally, on the line?

  This is bullcrap. The two items above are the only people who in serious risks of their lives. And all of the evidence is that they have figured all of this out by now - and with zero help from the Lord Fauci and Co. Below are this weeks numbers (all of which are complete garbage - except for ours):

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 12/12/2020 to 12/18/2020) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 12/12/2020  1578 vs. 2480 (John Hopkins) vs. 2749 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 12/13/2020  1370 vs. 1370 (John Hopkins) vs. 2996 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 12/14/2020  1375 vs. 1613 (John Hopkins) vs. 2277 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 12/15/2020  1434 vs. 2957 (John Hopkins) vs. 1434 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 12/16/2020 1516 vs. 3481 (John Hopkins) vs. 1754 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 12/17/2020  1419 vs. 3335 (John Hopkins) vs. 2942 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 12/18/2020  1459 vs. 2892 (John Hopkins) vs. 3424 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 18128 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 17576 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 10151 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,o37 deaths per day. It was 
no where near the 3,000 per day media hype. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 309,332
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 298,214
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 183,935

First, we will start with the lack of basic human decency by the entire political process:

   I believe that the State legislatures of the six most contested States should do the only intellectually honest thing there is to do: do no certification to either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. The election (at least in the six most contested States) is such a 21-alarm dumpster fire that there really is no honest way to certify anything (except the people who set the whole thing up - they are imminently certifiable).

  And (if you still believe to the contrary) just let me demonstrate the sheer level of dis-information involved: below is a Democrat sponsored study that proves that Trump’s claims are valid - about the voting machines being used to be quote “un-detectably rigging elections”:

Trump Hating 2019 Salon Magazine Article Supports Trump's Claims

   But why are they now walking away from their own study? That’s easy: the article was originally written to accuse Trump of stealing the election using the voting machines. Now that Trump is accusing them of the same thing the study is, you guessed it, “baseless”.

  Or how about Trump’s concerns over mail-in ballots? We also know that those are right for the same reasons. Because the Democrats said so:

“Democrats and the media used to see problems in such a plan.

“A mail-in ballot has wrong written all over it.” That’s what CNN reported in 2008, surmising former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s position on proposals to vastly expand absentee voting.

Obama used to argue how difficult it was to commit voter fraud in person. The New York Times agreed that the real threat was mail-in ballots, with the more absentee voting, the greater “potential for fraud.” "

  But why are they now walking away from their own studies? That’s easy: they were originally accusing Trump of trying to steal elections. Now that Trump is accusing them of the same thing their own studies are, and again you guessed it, “baseless”.

  So, I will not expand - at this time - on my specific observations about why no one should be certified in the elections in the six most contested States. But now we come to the need for our only current antidote to our problems: just use your common sense.

  The multi-billionaires that now control most of the internet are not even hiding that they want to violate people’s First Amendment freedoms to protect Joe Biden. They admitted that they censored any and all articles about Joe Biden and corruption through his son Hunter and other family members.

   And that is not simply covering the issue unfairly. They, and all main media outlets, explicitly stated that they were not going to cover it AT ALL. That they had decided that you were not entitled to even hear about it. And now the list expands geometrically: you may not talk about the Corona virus outside of their views on what is ‘truth’; you may not talk about the election contest outside of their views on what is ‘truth’, etc. And, again, not just unfair coverage - but no coverage (and they will pull your own work down and censor it out so it will not even be heard AT ALL).

  Are we really that stupid? We are even watching them do this (and they are not even hiding it) and yet it is Donald Trump who is organizing the putsch??? Use some brains and common sense - while it still even matters for you to do so!


THE TUESDAY QUORA FORUM: "Does the Texas AG attempt to invalidate millions of votes in MI, WI, Georgia, and PA have a chance to succeed in Trump’s attempt at a coup and ending democracy in the USA?" (POSTED 12/15/2020)

   This is the (rather) biased points of view that you get from the flunky media - but also sometimes from someone who is just your average everyday person. This was a posting out on the Quora forum by a regular person - who just has different views than I do. I gave a response - and then are some back and forth counter responses between myself and others. To be a part of this dialog go out to this link:

The Brief Overview: Just comparing one U.S. Government Database against another, you have over 16,000 alleged deaths in a week - but nearly 7,000 of these are the results of rampant discrepancies. True, there are real differences even between accurately done databases - but they will also be either plus or minus with equal regularity. And, they are almost never different than each other by more than 200 deaths. But, as always, just follow the numbers yourself: why are they using death tallies to shove our country down the toilet when there are only two days per week where there are even remotely consistent numbers available?  Below are this weeks numbers:

Using our Decipher Spreadsheet here are the correct death tallies (for the period of 12/05/2020 to 12/11/2020) - and compared with other databases:

      Saturday, 12/05/2020  1237 vs. 2256 (John Hopkins) vs. 2844 (World Health Organization)
      Sunday, 12/06/2020  1076 vs. 1076 (John Hopkins) vs. 2426 (World Health Organization)
      Monday, 12/07/2020  1284 vs. 1500 (John Hopkins) vs. 2303 (World Health Organization)
      Tuesday, 12/08/2020  1107 vs. 2780 (John Hopkins) vs. 1107 (World Health Organization)
      Wednesday, 12/09/2020 1321 vs. 3208 (John Hopkins) vs. 1529 (World Health Organization)
      Thursday, 12/10/2020  879 vs. 2919 (John Hopkins) vs. 2552 (World Health Organization)
      Friday, 12/11/2020  1503 vs. 2990 (John Hopkins) vs. 3390 (World Health Organization)

   So, as we do every seven days, what are the totals? According to the John Hopkins database, 16729 people died 
from the corona virus during this 7 day period. According to the World Health Organization database, 16151 
people died from the corona virus during this 7 day period. Whereas the true number was actually just 8407 
people during this 7 day period. The running 7-day average for daily death tallies was 1,o37 deaths per day. It was 
no where near the 3,000 per day media hype. 

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

      According to the John Hopkins the total fatalities are: 291,204
      According to the WHO the total fatalities are: 280,638
      Whereas the maximum total fatalities actually are: 173,784
   This is it: THE BIG PUSH. Unfortunately, I had assumed the corona virus scare was to get rid of Trump. I honestly believed
that the hype would go down after the election. However, it apparently turns out that the idea was to get rid of Trump so that they could 
accelerate the virus scare even more without his resistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   And now the cumulative totals for the entire epidemic:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HE DIDN'T  (UPDATED POST 10/25/2020)

   Because he didn't. It does not matter what he promises: the same answer will always apply. If he has been a do-nothing for 47 years how is he supposed to suddenly become a miracle worker?

Biden says his plan is to increase your paychecks by 15,000 DOLLARS? What in the heck is he talking about? He couldn't even get your paychecks increased by 1500 dollars - and after 8 years of being in power with Obama. You know he won't because he didn't.

Biden is promising he will give massive increases in Social Security benefits (and all other ways to get something from the government) without us having to pay for any of it. And that he will do this without using wacko socialism to try to redistribute the wealth. If he will be able to do this then why hasn't Biden ever even  proposed such a thing before - in all of his 47 years in public life? You know he won't because he didn't.

Biden is promising that we can ignore how far left the Democrats have become because he is not that way himself. That he will hold the line and keep the Party mainstream. But, again, his past record is that of a weak leader who can't take the heat and who capitulates under pressure. And he has already signed a 'Bernie' pact giving everything away to the left. You know he won't (keep the left in line) because he didn't.

Biden is promising that he would have done - and will - do better as a leader against the virus. However ... you know he won't be because he didn't. See his own chief of staff's assessment of how well they did during their own epidemic for yourself (click on the link below):

You know he won't be because he didn't ...

Why choose someone who has accomplished nothing in 47 years vs. a President who has accomplished so much in just 47 months? Best economy ever, trade deals that have re-industrialized America, all of the good peace deals in the Middle East. Even on the virus: he is the only world leader who has done a good job of protecting the most vulnerable against the virus - and he has done the most rapid development in vaccines and therapeutics against any virus ever. And on I could go.

Our next quick blurb tells the story another important way:


This is where the propping up (of whatever is still left of Joe Biden) totally disgusts me. For I remember the
Joe Biden of better times - and there was a lot good about Joe Biden. He used to be the one who conducted fair hearings, he was kindly to political opponents and he was not prone to go into wacko extremism.

But the hatred of Trump is so strong that they will even prop someone up who has Alzheimer's dementia. This is not a verbal jab - Biden does indeed have it. And, yes, you can know this absolutely - and without being a medical doctor. I know this because I have personally observed many people - who have been medically diagnosed with Alzheimer's. And Biden's behavior is so identical to theirs that I have no question it is the same phenomenon at work. There are many other people who will tell you the same basic thing that I am saying.

The press' ugly willingness to deliberately suppress news (to flunky for their own personal political activism) is the only reason that it is not more apparent to more people. There are literally dozens of cringe moments (he described how he likes to sit young children in his lap so they will play with his hairy legs). He regularly blows up at his own supporters - mistaking them for a Trump surrogate and forgetting where he is actually at. It goes on.

But look at policy: here is where you can see (with the most certainty) that there is simply no longer any Joe Biden actually in the race. Look at just three of the good points that I credited Biden with having during his former times.

1) He was just and kindly and conducted fair hearings for all. Chuck Schumer just put Diane Feinstein on notice that he did not like her acting kindly to the recent Supreme Court nominee, Barrett. He further instructed her that the entire Democratic Caucus got together and was telling her to stop being un-hateful! (For reals!) Why is this total and utter proof that Biden is not in charge of anything - and that all of his Democratic Caucus members know it?

Easy: If Biden was even remotely in charge of his party, he would have knocked Chuck Schumer senseless the very instant that he popped off in the way that he did. And Schumer knows this: he would never have popped off the way he did unless he was sure that Joe Biden was no longer at home.

2) He liked all people and was friendly to all of them. And yet he watched a Republican Senator - who is the son of someone he was personally familiar with - a Rand Paul get charged at by a mob and never said a word. Until, that is, a CNN analyst said "your polls are slipping" - upon which he still never really said a word (he was put up by others to simply read off a written statement - prepared by others).

If there was anything - whatsoever - of Joe Biden left this could never have happened. He would have started a non-stop screaming fit upon watching someone he was familiar with get physically attacked by a crowd. This is also the only reason his Democrat counterparts are allowing such antics to go on - because they know that there is nothing - whatsoever - of Joe Biden left.

3) He was not prone to extremism. We have already discussed his startling admission in front of 65 million people. But the most important point is that no one would even be considering such utter nonsense if Biden was really in charge.

It is true that the entire Democrat Party platform is unmitigated, socialistic nonsense. But it is not true that Biden is in charge so that it is a not-to-worry matter. It is instead true that the platform reads that way because a clique of utterly amoral party apparatchiks are engaging in a form of elder abuse: and against a psychologically incompetent person.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

His answer: “Yes”

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

His answer: “Yes”

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Yes

2) Yes

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

4) According to me it's yes”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, October 10th:           332

Sunday, October the 11th:        400

Monday, October the 12th:      298

Tuesday, October the 13th:      487

Wednesday, October the 14th: 335

Thursday, October the 15th:    389

Friday, October the 16th:         234

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

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

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


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

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

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

   There are only two ways to treat other people. You either judge all people by the same equal standards or you have some group of people that you are biased (or bigoted?) against. So ... stop listening to Black Lives Matter, the New American Left (and its Flunky Media syncophants) and other people who are bigoted against White police officers. And for the proof of bigotry (that they are not being given an equal standard) see below:
   Proven fact: Breanna Taylor was involved in illegal activity. This is why the police had a valid warrant to search her house. Proven Fact: the only reason it escalated (from a valid search warrant to a gun fight) is because her boyfriend escalated it. He is the one who opened up the gun fight: her boyfriend started shooting first; the police only started shooting second. So if the police are being given the same fair and equal standards that the Left demands for themselves: then how can you take all of these proven facts - and come to the conclusion that it racist White police officers who are the cause of all of our problems? Now how, exactly, does that constitute judging all people by the same equal standards?
   Or how about that rapist who got shot in the back? Proven fact: the person involved is a rapist (translation: that means that he rapes women). Proven fact: the police were called in by a woman who did not want to get raped by him. Proven fact: here is the only reason he wound up being shot in the back: he still went all the way back to his car (after being repeatedly told to stop), opened it up and then started reaching for something - with his back still turned to them.
   Now, if shooting people in the back is really such a favorite past time of White police officers, then why did several hundred feet and several moments of time (with the police - repeatedly - saying "stop, stop, stop, stop" and him - repeatedly - not stopping) go by? And - all during this time - they did no shooting of any one in the back? Why is it that it was only after he finally made it to his car - and started doing his reaching - that the first shot was finally fired? It is perfectly obvious why - if, that is, you are willing to judge White police officers by the same equal standards you would judge anyone else.
  So back again to our main point: you either are judging people by equal standards or you are judging them by bigoted standards. Also, while all of these bigoted standards are being applied against White police officers, what of the average African-American citizen? The people for whom all of this discord is, presumably, being done for?
   More proven facts: Most of these protesters are not Blacks but are young White morons from a pampered background. They are radicalized to the left and not the right. And the bigoted people they are listening to are anti-Trump and not pro-Trump.
   So pardon my crass way of putting it but it is simply a case of too many young White morons listening to too many bigoted people. To them I say "Wise up!" And to those who automatically assume that "young White morons listening to bigoted people" would have to refer to Trump supporters: Wrong again. You also need to "Wise up!"
(POSTED 9/22/2020)
   I have decided to rerun a crucial Culture Watch posting. If you have not read it before, please click on the
hyperlink below:
(POSTED 9/17/2020)
    This is Part 2: it details the "how" of the fraudulent accounting of virus deaths. And I will start with what is actually the easy part: that it takes no cabal or major conspiracy to destroy democracy. People have no idea how vulnerable we all are to just a few amoral people at low levels in the national bureaucracy. Question: at what levels are virtually all prosecutions of criminals, counting of election ballots - and tabulating of corona virus deaths done at? The County level.
   For example: there is no city, state or federal involvement in the tallying of any ballots for any election. And if a County level bureaucrat allows a break in the chain of custody on how ballots are handled (and totally unsupervised work winds up being done with them) there is no civil or criminal penalty. Further, none of the mishandled ballots have ever been rejected from being counted.
   Thus, it is not difficult for low level bureaucrats to falsify the ballots that determine our democracy. And all that is involved in the false tallying of virus deaths is just a low level bureaucrat being allowed to do unsupervised paper work. Which is then designed to affect our democracy as much as the false tallying of ballots: the Resistance has put all of its chips down on using the virus to manipulate people and to get their votes.
   Are you still thinking that this is a right wing conspiracy claim? Then I will call a George Soros to back me up. He is someone who is, essentially, a billionaire insurrectionist. He does not believe in America as it is today and wants it abolished into something totally other than what it is today. In short, he is driven to use the billions he has made from America in an effort to destroy America.
   And what has raised eyebrows lately about the way he is using these billions? It is his mass push to elect low level bureaucrats in County governments. Thus, I know I am right about the vulnerabilities we have to just a few amoral, low level bureaucrats. It is because George Soros has confirmed that for me by the way that he is spending his money.
   Under his influence, many County District Attorneys (who actually control most of the criminal justice system) are becoming political operatives for the Resistance - rather than simply defending the people against law breakers. Blue County Elections officials (who control all of the ballot tallying in their Blue Counties) are no longer impartial operators of the democratic process. They will allow massive breaches in the chain of custody for ballots: thereby, effectively, destroying democracy by a low level bureaucrat simply letting things happen - and doing nothing themselves personally.
   So why should it be difficult for an unsupervised bureaucrat to simply do unsupervised paperwork - with an agenda in mind? Thus, the first part of my "how" explanation is not only easy but (in my view) uncomfortably easy on how it could be done. If you have the amorality to do a false tally of ballots why not a false tally of corona virus deaths - if you hope the panic involved will create more favorable ballots for you in the next election cycle?
   Now done to the technical aspects: the Days of the Week phenomenon. This is also an easy matter. Sometimes the obvious is simply the obvious; sometimes that which is right in front of you should simply be judged as that which is right in front of you. And that is all that we have here.
   For whatever reason, we have a fraudulent process that can only sustain itself for part of each week rather than all seven days. We have a virus that is fraudulently being counted as being 5 days on (Tuesdays thru Saturdays) and two days off (Sundays and Mondays) simply because something about their process (whatever it is) can only be done on those 5 days of the week. It is a process that simply seems to run out of steam, if you will.
   The process totally collapses on all Sundays and Mondays and, increasingly, starts to run out of material to work with on Fridays and Saturdays. These days are starting to abate on some on the process - but not in a total way that Sundays and Mondays always do. Also, some States have stopped inflating their numbers as the real amount of virus deaths have become very small. Apparently, when trying to pad numbers, you need to have at least some significant amount of real numbers available to apply the padding to.
   Now do I, personally, have the resources to run all aspects of this to ground myself? No, I do not. But it should not be needed. I, and I think clearly so, do believe in being analytical - but you still do not want to over-analyze. Sometimes the obvious is simply the obvious. Since it is not physically possible for a virus to kill people on a neat line schedule (with different killing patterns per each specific day of the week) then it is not physically possible for virus death reporting of this nature to be any thing other than a fraud. Also, there are obvious numbers involved as well:
   The deaths, of people being hospitalized for Covid-19, are down by 85% since the peak death rates. Therefore, the actual deaths (from just Covid-19 itself) are only the following formula: 15% times the rate at which people are being more, or less, hospitalized for Covid. That is, if the deaths are down by 85% then 15% is all that is left of how many deaths there still are. Compared, that is, as to whether there is either a higher or lower number of people being hospitalized.
   If 85% less people die from the hospital (but twice as many are getting hospitalized) then you would still have about 30% as many deaths - 15% times the factor of 2 (twice as many people being hospitalized). On the other hand, if the number is unchanged, then the 15% rate is the correct rate for how many people are truly dying from Covid. But the hospitalization numbers are still down from the peak of the epidemic. Therefore: it is a physical impossibility for the Covid deaths to be much higher than 15% of the peak numbers.
   But the RECORDED numbers have us at nearly 50% of the number of Covid deaths - around an extra 35% that has no truly logical way to account for it. (Since virtually all people who die from Covid die in the hospitals - where the deaths are down by 85% of the people (not 50%) and with less people being there with Covid - and not more). Now compare this against the normal assumptions about my numbers.
   The low death tallies on Sundays and Mondays are correct with the numbers of 85% less deaths. And the extra deaths tallied between Tuesdays and Saturdays make up close to that additional 35% that has no proper accounting. Ergo, what I have said: the padding of the death numbers takes place between Tuesdays and Saturdays (where the extra 35% can be accounted for) and does not take place on Sundays and Mondays (where the death rates are consistent with verifiable actual numbers). Thus, what we are obviously observing is simply what we are obviously observing: There is a massive tampering process that, apparently, can only be done on the days between Tuesday and Saturday - and they haven't been able to do on Sunday/Monday.
   I do not know exactly why their process works that way but I still do know (and to a moral certitude) that that is still the way their process works. Others, with more resources, will need to take it from here.
(POSTED 9/10/2020)

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

Start of Reprint:

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

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

End of Reprint

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

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

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

But here is where you will need your moment of clarity. How can the death tallies follow a predictable pattern - of precise days of the week - when viruses don't actually kill people according to precise days of the week? The answer is that this can only happen if the tallies are totally erroneous - since a virus can never actually kill this way. A virus is never going to be, say, twice as likely to kill you on a Tuesday as it is on a Monday. Thus, if the tallies are being reported that way it is because they are being reported erroneously. But I had a second set of predictions.

Below is the reprint of my latest prediction set:

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


The Democrat Convention speaks for itself by way of Kamala Harris. She is being put forward as the epitome of identity politics. She checks a Female box, An African American box and etc - while having already proved herself to be a dud candidate. She was soundly rejected by the rank and file voters but put in the appropriate slot by the Party elders.

But it also shows why Identity Politics is grossly phony. For she is not even an African American - she is an immigrant from Jamaica. She has no real roots to the African American experience (her family even OWNED slaves rather than having been slaves) and she has never even identified herself with the African American community. During her career in law enforcement she played up to the rich and powerful (even if it meant allowing pedophiles to go un-prosecuted) and put her foot down on African Americans and average people.

So why do a long piece on the Democrat ticket? When they play identity politics - and then put some on it who is not even an African American but is being allowed to pass as one - then what more needs to be said. I take a similar approach to the Republican convention.

Just as the Democrat ticket is shot down by their own words and behavior so is Trump judged to be right for America from the Democrat's own words and behavior as well. Just look at one of the last of Trump's statements about his opposition. How they demand free speech and then deny it to others.

Not only did Trump's opposition confirm his correctness, they - literally - didn't even wait for the participants of the Republican convention to leave the building before already confirming it. Play the videos clips below and see it for yourself:

"I'll F _ _ _ you up!"

"We have him trapped"

Does that look like your kinds of people? Then don't vote for their candidates - and Biden is their candidate who has supported their efforts. Remember: you have seen it for yourself - it is only when a Don Lemon said to the Democrats "Your polls are slipping" that they suddenly admitted (and on that very same day!) that there is violence and that they will now come out against it. Not before.


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

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

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

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


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

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

This will be the subject of a future write up.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dear Governor


I am referring again to Lori 'The Whack Job' Lightfoot: the Mayor of Chicago. Listen to her for yourself:

The Whack Job Loses It (Except That She Never Had It In The First Place)

As to her protestations: she has been saying these same things since Day One in office. But nothing ever changes - and she is the reason why! Hear it again for yourself:

Thus, I am forced to go back again to a previously stated position: how am I supposed to save people from themselves - simply because I am a White man? This is the type of a nut job that many African American citizens have been electing to be their Mayors - and with all of the attendant consequences.

And what will many of these same African Americans say when bad things happen? "You are a White man - so you have this power to make these things stop." No I don't - unless you want me to take away your voting rights?


As you know, I am against the Blue State Mayors and Governors (and their cannon fodder that they are using for political purposes, the rioters and the virus). But an 800 pound gorilla is still being left unaddressed - and it is that some county and city governments have bloated payrolls.

I realize that the knee jerk response of police supporters (like myself) is to look the other way but the fact is, is that some departments do pay their police officers (and all of their civil service) way too much money.

Looking at the inserted photo, you have the average Seattle Police paycheck being 3 and 4 times higher that the average worker. The taxpayers simply can not shell out this type of money and still keep enough police officers on their force. Someone working at $25-30 per hour can not spend $140 per hour for a police officer and still have enough of them around. A dirty secret is that it is the small government bodies (Cities and Counties) that have the most bloated payrolls for all of their Civil Service. In many areas of the country, all City and County Civil Service paychecks need to be cut by at least a 1/3 to reflect the ability of the public to pay for it.

What do I specifically favor regarding the Seattle PD? In general: Increase Police spending by 20% but get 50% more officers on the streets by spending the money more wisely. More precisely: It is reducing the average Police paycheck (minus the benefits) down to 1 1/2 times the average paycheck (minus the benefits) for the average citizen. As to the good benefits: the Police should be rewarded so I would not change that - as long it does not lead to their total compensation exceeding twice the national average of the average citizen. This sounds anti-police but it is not. I would use the savings to hire more police officers; I even favor allocating more money to the police in total: but it still needs to be spent wisely. Rome fell when the bureaucracy became too expensive - and dragged the rest of the system down.

Just some friendly advice from someone who is both a friend to law enforcement and to the average taxpayer - you still have to keep the two things in balance. You still can't knee jerk; we need a lot more police but we will not be able to afford it at the current excessive compensation rates. A police officer can not be paid 3 and 4 times more than an average worker and still stay in touch with the average worker and his needs. Keep being pro-Police (as I am), keep opposing De-funding (as I do) but you still don't want to be a knee jerker either. Nor can we afford to be: the average taxpayer simply can not afford a lot of the bloated pay rolls of City and County governments.


Fact One: A riot cripples an area (and its occupants) for up to 10 full years. In short, the Anti-trump elistists (that govern virtually every major city) have gotten their own areas (for the average person) F'ed, U'ed, C'ed and K'ed for the next decade. And since when is there such a thing as a right to riot?

Fact Two: Guess what racial make-up almost all of these areas are? You got it! Black not White. And what are they rioting against? White racism and how it hurts Black people. Sheer brilliance.

Fact Three: Under martial law, it is lawful for the authorities to shoot, on sight, anyone rioting or looting. It is constitutional, it is lawful in all 50 states and it has been regularly done in other times of unrest. (If you can help me: I am searching for the video of a U.S. soldier telling a looter "you could have gotten yourself shot over a twinkie, asshole!" This occurred during the Rodney King riot in 1992.)

Fact Four: "Compassion for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent". Who cares how awful it is to shoot a bad person down under these types of circumstances? It is awful; but just how much longer do law abiding citizens have to put up with the almost unlimited cruelty of "morally superior" people? And the types of mayors who will allow things like this to go on endlessly?

The firing of that first live round will end all of this garbage. They do it because they can get away with it; they will stop when they can't.

Deterrence works.


Now we have just witnessed murder on behalf of The Resistance. Yet it is still Trump, not The Resistance, that is the danger to democracy? But let's put that up to a challenge. If you are up for the challenge read through the materials below:

Trump supporter gets shot in the head

Still not convinced?

Trump supporter gets kicked in the head

Still not convinced?

Trump supporter gets framed for rape (read article below):

Still not convinced? How about the strange case of a Gordon Sondland? A clear test case for our propostion: see what the Anti-trumpers did to him when he was Pro-Trump vs. what Trump did after he turned against him. Then see who is the biggest civil rights abuser.

I have written before about a Gordon Sondland - who originally supported Trump then later opposed him. Compare what happened to him when he was supporting Trump (his own Congressman led a boycott against his business, he got Me-Too'ed by several women, threatened with prosecution by the SDNY, etc.) vs. what happened afterwards: he lost his diplomatic post. So, in the spirit of the challenge, who was more dangerous to Sondland: Trump or the Anti-Trumpers? (And why did the boycotting, Me-Too'ing and threat of prosecution stop once he flipped against Trump? Did he suddenly become un-guilty due to his flip - or just become of no interest to The Resistance anymore?)

One last challenge if you still think that Trump is more dangerous than the Anti-Trumpers:

The people who are burning everyone out, looting them, etc. - and the politicians who are allowing them to do this. Are they Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump?


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Like all important issues, there is always something of a back story. Before I get specifically in the Juneteenth, etc. issues, let me first walk the reader through three recent incidents from our past.

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

Whether the perception was right, wrong or indifferent it was perceived that – for the first time – a group of people had come into the country for the purposes of NOT assimilating. For this is what the immigration debate is actually – and has always been – about: it is simply about assimilation. Neither the President (nor any Republican that I am aware of) has ever had objections to any type of a person coming so long as they stick to the script: you can come here as anything BUT, once here, you become only an American and you are no longer anything else! You do not come here to NOT assimilate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with it is that, unless you a total dumb bunny, you still know that it is a first step towards getting a divorce – all of the intellectualizing and rationalizing notwithstanding. I know we are in the middle of a strained relationship right now with some African American citizens – but I am still not in favor of us winding up with a divorce coming out of it.

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

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


I will repeat, verbatim, a previous blurb from 2/24/2020 when some other pardons/commutations were given:

Quote: "As to the recent pardons and commutations: if you are familiar with my writings you know how I feel about 'process' crimes. This is where a federal investigation finds no wrong doing. However, they take the way that you responded to their efforts to put you in jail. Then, if they find your response to have been inappropriate they prosecute you for that - so that they can still put you in jail!

And, again, excuse me for my own prior naivete on this matter. I remember someone named Deaver (back in the 80's) - he did some bad optics/conflict of interest behavior and was investigated by a special counsel. And it was one of the first instances of this phenomena: he was cleared of a crime on the matter but still prosecuted for his behavior in how he responded to their investigation. (But you lied to us during the process! So you are going to jail for that).

I clearly recall not liking what I was seeing. But I wasn't sufficiently on guard about this type of conduct (by fed prosecutors) that was being done at that time. Since then, as this has gone on and on and over and over, I am sufficiently on guard now.

My belief is that Trump should pardon everyone ever convicted of a 'process' crime - period  - and going all the way back to Deaver. This would also include the controversial Mr. Stone but so what. Then he should give a long overdue executive order: finish your investigation and if there was no underlying crime involved then do like every other law enforcement body does. Namely: just shut up, drop your prosecution and GO AWAY. " End quote.

You will note that I also mentioned a Mr. Stone. The recently convicted Roger Stone is another 'process' crimes (by way of a kangaroo court) type of a conviction. His charges were lying to the investigators (how many local police officers have arrested someone for "But officer I am on the way to the hospital"/"I was going 85 MPH!!! But my speedometer only says 65", etc.) They could; but they don't. Also, local law enforcement does not try to make you out to be a liar - just to have something to prosecute you with!

His second one was 'tampering' with a witness. Not witness intimidation, not bribing a witness but a general 'tampering' with one. Since this is a short blurb, I will not go into my full length explanation about how the "Intersection Maneuver" works - but this is explained in my other writings. Suffice it to say that this was just another SDNY sponsored prosecution, Republicans only targeted and feel free to stretch both the English language (and an exaggeration of someone's behavior) until you can find a way to prosecute.

Also, everyone else is now just another hack as well. Judges, journalists and et al - in addition to the federal prosecutors. Emmett Sullivan, who 'impartially' has presided over the Flynn case is refusing to allow the prosecution to drop their charges. It is his personal crusade to not allow the government to dismiss charges against someone who wound up in his court - where his 'impartial' judgment is supposed to prevail. The judge over the Stone trial, in all likelyhood, was no different.

You can't have a prospective juror lie during voir dire (the jury selection process) about a material matter. Not only was she not impartial (as she claimed) she was an anti-Trump activist - and lied about it during her selection process. This makes any trial (especially one where she pushed herself forward to become the jury foreman) a legal nullity. Stone should not have needed a commutation of his sentence - the Judge had a duty to dump the verdict the second her scam was exposed. He has never offered (and never will offer) to do so.

Thus, my repeat of the prior article from February. Trump is still not going far enough - we don't need federal prosecutors (with more resources than God) going around with an attitude that "there must be some way I can put this A _ _ hole in jail for something." No underlying crime, the federal prosecutor shuts up and walks away. No second bite at the apple with an attempt to put you in jail - for your improper response to their initial effort to put you in jail. Enough is enough.


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

What's more, how did we regain the ability to do it after having previously lost it - if it is really an impossible task? The rate did spike all the way up to 8% but is now trending down. So how could we have regained the low rates again if it is a physically impossible event? But, per the last update,  "you are also being given confusing news."

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

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

So now let's consider other possibilities. For example, Trump might, reluctantly, step in. The governors are still totally incompetent; they are still trying to control the virus by shutting down the general population rather than triaging. That is, you just focus on the small part of the population that actually needs the help.

Because the governors will not mobilize the National Guard (or other resources to do this) Trump could federalize the National Guard and get them mobilized himself. We are, apparently, not going to get the basic competence that we need out of any of the 50 State governors. For there are just three measures needed: 1) give the vulnerable access to a  'hotline' to call if they need someone to get them provisions without exposing themselves 2) N95 masks out to all the people in this subgroup - so that any trips they do make out into the general population are way less risky and 3) make frequent public announcements advising the elderly to make use of these resources to stay out of harms way. And, also, to use the high quality masks made available to them if they must go out for any reason.

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

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

Finally, if you have not read the following article, you can do so for a good overview of all of our 'scientific' problems with the 'scientific' people. Click below to read the article:

February Archives

March Archives

April Archives

May Archives