Category Archives: Government

IS AMERICA A REPUBLIC, OR A DEMOCRACY, OR NEITHER?

Well, a lot has changed over the past year. Hell, a lot has changed over the past 10 years! So, with all the changes and events that have taken place, what governing system is America now? Well, first we need to look at what defines the different systems and compare that to what has been happening in America today.

What is a Republic?

A “Republic” is defined as: “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”

Is America a Republic?

So, the question becomes “Who holds the ‘supreme power’ in America?” In a republic, it is “by the people AND their elected representatives.” Do you really think, “The People” share the supreme power with “elected representatives”? NOPE. This is false. The nation wide lockdowns prove this to be false. The recent suppression of the people’s free speech by big tech companies and the purposeful lack of action by the “elected representatives” also disproves this. The failure of the court system to validate the people’s supreme power also verifies this fallacy. Finally, the election itself, is rot with corruption, questioning the validity of these “elected representatives.”

The People, include, protesters, small business owners, and people who work underpaid jobs to feed their families. Do you really think they share in this “supreme power?” How can they be deemed “non-essential” and forced to shut down if they actually have supreme power? Then, when some of these people exercise their power and frustrations, their representatives deem them “domestic terrorists,” and “unlawful rioters.” And how can UNELECTED corporation CEOS make the decision of their own will to silence and censor The People? It is clear, that The People do not hold any “supreme power.”

Therefore, we can conclude that America is NOT or NO LONGER a Republic.

What is a Democracy?

A “Democracy” is defined as: “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

Is America a Democracy?

Are all Americans governed by the whole population’s majority decisions, and this majority through elected representatives? This seems more reasonable of a comparison. When we look into the details we can see evidence for this system. The issue of Abortion for example. A serious social issue. 61% of American’s are in favor of its legality [1]. Thus, public policy and laws reflect this. 61% also favor gay marriage and gay rights, which, also reflects in public policy [2]. 67% support the legalization of marijuana, and as time goes on, we see public policy and laws changing to reflect this as well. 66-68% of Americans are worried the lockdown restrictions were/will be lifted too quickly, thus, showing they in some ways support them. 59% of people want the government involved in their healthcare, which the government was more than happy to do [5]. 60% of people still want even more stricter gun control laws, which, the government has done, and still has plans on doing.

But then we run into a divide between the majority of people and the elected officials. 66% say that civilians need to be more empowered to sue police over police brutality, yet, law makers aren’t willing to reflect that. 92% of people feel it should be a crime for police to use choke holds. 69% of people say police aren’t being held accountable for misconduct. 73% want to keep police budgets the same or slightly increase, but we see local governments in opposition to this [4]. 62% view the federal tax system as unfair. But, we don’t see elected officials changing that. 68% want to raise taxes on corporations, but, this hasn’t happened either [5].

It seems that the elected representatives only seem to support the majority in some things, but not in others. But, this is part of a democracy. If the democratic people don’t like their representative, for not doing enough, or doing too little, they elect a new representative. In theory, that sounds good. But, in reality, it’s not that simple.

Nanci Pelosi, for example, represents the 12 District in California, which is essentially all of San Francisco. Where the medium income is around $120k and a population of 800,000 people. In essence, she only represents 0.2% of Americans. Yet, as speaker of the house, she wheals the power to influence all Americans. She, alone, makes decisions that impact people she doesn’t even represent. There are A LOT of “rules” and “procedures” like this all throughout congress. This, in essence, circumvents the representation aspect of public office. More and more of these ideals and positions have become ingrained in American government.

Governmental regulatory bodies, like the ATF, FDA, IRS, FCC, and EPA are just unelected, appointed, government officials that make regulations that are enforceable like laws. There is NO elected representation here. And these are huge. They create regulations that impact all Americans and all American’s must comply or face fines and legal issues. This is not democratic in anyway. In fact, this is so huge and such a big part of the American system, it’s easy to say it makes up 70% of the federal government, unelected regulatory authorities.

We can actually come to a good estimate that only 25% of the American system is democratic. The other 75% are congressional rules and polices with regulatory bodies that aren’t elected or represent the people of their regions.

Therefore, we can conclude that America is barely a Democracy.

If America is NOT a Republic and hardly a Democracy, what is it?

Well, let’s consider the facts. Both parties expand the size of government, both parties increase federal spending, and both parties utilize the authority of the federal government to force their agendas. We can say that both parties are One party that is Pro-Big Government. They share the same ideology of big one big powerful government.

Because both parties use their governmental powers to force the people to comply in the most basic ways; such as in “stay-at-home” orders, suspending religious worship, and forced closure of small private business while supporting larger corporate operations, we can say that the American government is, in fact, authoritarian. There are only a handful of politicians that impact all Americans AND there are a handful of corporate CEOs who also wheeled unchecked power over all Americans. Therefore, we can conclude that America is an authoritarian Oligarchy.

What is an Oligarchy?

An Oligarchy is defined as: “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.”

Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Committee Chairman, and the CEOs of the fortune 50 companies… these are the few who have control of America. It’s that simple.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch “The Bitch” Mcconnell single highhandedly prevented you from being given your own tax dollars back to you in the “stimulus” but was perfectly fine with giving other people all other the world hundreds of billions of YOUR tax dollars…

Did you see a third party presidential candidate on the debate stage during the elections? They were on the ballot, though. That’s because both parties prevented them from attending, and the CEOs of the “News” networks didn’t invite them either. They don’t share in the same One Big Government as Republicans and Democrats do.

Mark Zucc, Jack Douchy, and CEOs of Amazon, Google, and Apple, censor you and prevent private companies to empower your free speech, single highhandedly, and no one in government is defending your rights of free speech. Hell, this post will even be shadow banned, and all our pages reach have been reduced already. They banned a sitting president of the United States, a public official, from using their free-and-open-to-the-public services. This is not an argument as to whether or not they should as a private company themselves, but used to show the power they have, over you; an oligarchy.

In fact, in light of all the recent events,

America is MORE of an authoritarian oligarchy than it is Democratic.

Voting for Republican OR Democrat is still voting for those who support one big government. This is the illusion that America is the example of Democracy… when it is hardly such.

But, you silly Americans, you keep paying your taxes and you keep voting harder for the few to spend your money and rule over you; obey peasants.

Discussion on the Effectiveness of Wearing Masks

Leave a reply

Part of diet and fitness is your overall health. With so much hoopla about COVID and Face-masks, we want to know, supported by reliable data driven experts, if wearing a face-mask works, or does not work, or risks more harm or less harm; and how that can help you plan your safe, lower risk, workouts and going to the gym.

Wearing a Mask

“If properly worn, surgical masks block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays or splatters that may contain germs like viruses and prevent them from reaching your mouth and nose, according to the FDA.” [1] So, according to the government agency, this mask protects YOU from OTHERS. But is it really protecting you, if you’re continually re-injecting viruses and bacteria from your own body? After all, sneezing and coughing is your body ejecting unwanted things.

“Because surgical masks fit loosely rather than having a tight seal, they don’t provide an absolute barrier or complete protection against tiny particles in the air that may be released by coughs or sneezes.”[1] And these “tiny particles” also known as “aerosol particles” are so small, they even go through all cloth masks. So, again, what’s the point?

Oddly, and “currently, the CDC does not recommend that healthy people wear a face mask to protect themselves from COVID-19 (or other respiratory illnesses). According to W.H.O., masks are only effective when a person also frequently washes their hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.” [1] Now that’s an interesting point. Is it the mask that helps or washing your hands?

If “aerosol particles” go through the mask but washing your hands can wash off and kill viruses in the particles, wouldn’t washing your hands be the thing to do?

*UPDATE*

The CDC reversed, again, their recommendations and are now recommending all people to wear masks. The idea is that it blocks the larger particles from spreading. But if health people are wearing masks, what COVID laced particles are they spreading? None. So then the benefit for healthy people to wear the mask is to prevent breathing in the large particles from sick people who aren’t wearing masks. Makes sense. BUT, have you ever smelt a fart or walked somewhere where you could smell food or weird bathroom smells? The answer is yes. Have you wondered how large those particles are? Well, they are larger than a virus. Now, granted the virus does not travel in the area by its self, alone. When someone infected sneezes, they shoot out all sort of sized aerosol particles, not just those big scary nasty droplets. Studies suggest the virus can be in the air for hours, depending on the size of the particles. Knowing smaller aerosol particles get ejected and can linger in the air, are smaller than fecal and food particles, this still brings us back to the starting point.

The basic scenario of some infected person walking down the isle of Walmart, sneezing while wearing a mask still ejects small aerosol particles in the air, that smaller kind that can linger. Then, you walk down that same isle 10 minutes later. You breath in and out smelling all the food smells… and inhale those very small aerosol particles, through your mask… Then, as the bigger heavier particles fall and rest on something on the isle, that you may touch and buy and take home… all of this while the both of you are wearing masks… What did wearing the mask accomplish?

A simple test is Tobacco Smoke. Can you smell it wearing your masking? The particle size of tobacco smoke is around 0.05 and 0.01 [18]. What about a virus attached to aerosol droplets that size? Well, it’s still a possibility according to this 2010 study, studying the H1N1 virus (same family of virus as COVID) [19]. A good visual is using a chain-link fence to block mosquitoes.

How many strangers, in public, sneeze in your face? How many strangers breath heavily in your face? None. No one really does that. It’s common knowledge that it’s rude and gross. So if heavier droplets fall on objects you touch and small aerosol particles linger in air as your walking around… all while wearing a mask, yet, smaller than the fibers of 99% of masks the public uses, what has been prevented? Still doesn’t change the premise of this article.

There are a couple of states that never went on lockdown [20]. Why don’t they have higher infections rates and deaths? [21] Some countries didn’t impose such harsh restrictions either, why are they not more hard hit? It’s logic, the more testing and data collection, the higher the numbers. Not necessarily because the virus is spreading but because of the amount of testing being conducted. Some states have even been busted inflating the numbers! [22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28… and we can keep going]. Even the bias left-wing VOX admits to this [25]. And what happened to the seasonal flu? What happened to those numbers? There are a whole host of influenza viruses out there, where are those numbers? Why do states to certain political ideologies seem to have worse numbers? Notice how they try to avoid talking about the deadliness (or lack of) of the virus, because, it’s not as deadly as they want you to think. Some even come up with arguments against considering the mortality rate. What is worse than death? See, there is more data manipulation and politics at play here than COVID itself.

*END OF UPDATE*

Why Wear A Mask If You Touch Things?

“As a lay person, using a cloth face mask, or continually wearing a surgical face mask whenever you leave your home, poses practical problems. “If you think about a bandanna or something that’s papery, it’s going to get wet through the day and be uncomfortable, and potentially you’re going to touch it more,” says Dr. Colleen Kraft, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. That reduces the mask’s effectiveness and actually could expose you to possible virus on its outer surface.” [1] This seems to place the greater importance in washing your hands than wearing a cloth/paper mask.

Mask or no mask, avoid touching the mucosal surfaces of your face – your mouth, nose and eyes. “Surgical masks will not prevent your acquiring diseases,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, and the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Rather, he explained, surgical masks are typically used by surgeons to protect their patients from their mouth-borne germs — but “those masks don’t work to prevent inhaling diseases,” said Schaffner. As for more preventative measures, Schaffner recommends “abundant hand-washing” [6] Again, “abundant hand-washing” is prescribed.

Face masks can play a role in preventing the infection, but that role is limited. A healthy individual in a normal situation does not need to wear a mask. A face mask is not the ideal solution for protection from the new coronavirus for the following reasons: A surgical mask does not fit tightly over the nose and mouth (which allows particles in and out); It is not possible to prevent airborne virus infection (some particles are so small they just go through the mask anyway); When you touch the mask, you lose the protection and must replace the mask, and dispose of it safely. [10]

Who Should Wear The Mask?

“CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.”[2] It’s odd the CDC still recommends “simple cloth face coverings” even though viruses to so small they fit right through them. It also seems that the mask “works” best for people who are already infected to prevent and reduce the risk of them spreading it from saliva and or coughing through droplets and expelling larger particles. But that still doesn’t address the smaller particles and the virus itself…

“But those who work around confirmed infected people, a mask may reduce the risk of inhaling the virus from the infected person’s cough (except if they particles are small). W.H.O. says, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19“…The WHO recommends masks for those who are symptomatic or known to have COVID-19, and those exposed to people who are sick, but not for the healthy out in public.”[2] Sounds a little contradictory.

“A cloth face mask won’t totally block the coronavirus. But it’s an added layer of protection for you and the people around you when you use it along with regular handwashing and social distancing measures like staying 6 feet away from others.”[7] Soooo it’s hand-washing and distancing that is better, since the virus can travel through the mask?

“The public does not need to wear face masks most of the time, said Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.” [8] It seems that way.

Major health agencies, including the World Health Organization, the CDC, and others, have offered confusing and sometimes contradictory guidelines (as noted above). Most healthcare professionals have concluded that, at the very worst, a mask can’t hurt, even if it may provide a false sense of safety. Three large, randomized controlled trials were conducted in the 1980s to determine once and for all if surgical masks actually did prevent surgical wound infection. Here, where bacteria were the major concern in wound infection, the enemy targets were larger and might not require the fine filtration necessary to keep a respiratory virus away, researchers theorized. But the trials “showed absolutely no efficacy” for that original purpose. “Really, the surgeon might as well wear nothing on their face,” C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia said. Mask wearing “is so inculcated into the practice of medicine that it’s going to be very hard to change,” said John G. Bartlett, MD, former chief of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins. [11]. It’s as if wearing a mask is to make you feel better and a tradition and not something that actually prevents anything.

Wearing a face mask purportedly helps in two ways. First, you get to keep your own germs to yourself. (But is that something good for you and something you want?) [13] But, why would I want to continually keep re-inhaling a virus? They’re meant to be disposable and worn only once. If they get wet, they become useless and should be thrown away. So if you keep wearing the same mask, you keep re-introducing virus stuck on the mask into your body, over and over. You wash your hands, then touch your mask, washing your hands was pointless…

What Do Studies Say?

“A study involved four subjects with COVID-19 coughing with several mask types, and without any mask, onto petri dishes. The masks themselves were also swabbed after coughing. They found the masks did not prevent spread of the virus through coughing (for every mask type, some virus still made it onto the petri dishes). They also found virus on the outside of the masks but not the inside, which is a bit counterintuitive. They speculate that airflow around the mask may be depositing the virus on the outside.” [3]

So are some masks better than others at reducing the risk, even though there is still a risk with all masks?

A recent study found that surgical masks (which are much less effective than the N95 masks) are somewhat effective at slightly reducing the risk. [4]

In a recent systematic review of 19 trials, they concluded that in “the community, masks appeared to be more effective than hand hygiene alone, and both together are more protective. Randomized controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.” [5]

A March 17 study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) [9] seemed to justify the fear of airborne spread, showing that the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 could survive in the air for up to 3 hours as an aerosol. The new study showed that the virus was viable as an aerosol in a lab, but not in real life. In the study, the researchers “took extremely concentrated virus, much more concentrated than a person makes, they used an artificial aerosol machine [a nebulizer], which probably generates way more aerosol than a normal person does So their conclusions were in this system. The researchers of that study looked at SARS-CoV-1 (the original SARS from the 2003 outbreak) and SARS-CoV-2 and found that both could be aerosols. “But we already know that the original SARS virus was not transmitted that way,” in the general public, so that makes their model “not very believable (Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.) [8]

The only high-level evidence for efficacy of masks in the community was a trial from Hong Kong — published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine — involving flu patients who were randomized to hand hygiene alone or in combination with surgical masks. when these interventions were initiated within 36 hours of symptom onset, face masks plus hand hygiene reduced risk of transmission by a very significant 67%. Although the entire benefit can’t be attributed to face masks, the results suggest masks may make a difference. [12] Compared with controls, employing hand hygiene alone or with face masks tended to reduce transmission of the flu to those living in the same house, but not significantly so [11].

A “2009 Canadian study of 446 nurses who were working with influenza patients concluded that face masks provided protection almost equivalent to that provided by respirators. Unfortunately, that turns out to be mixed news. Of the nurses wearing surgical face masks, 23.6 percent contracted the flu, versus 22.9 percent of those wearing N95 respirators. Ironically, that same year, an Australian study of 2000 Chinese healthcare workers had quite different results. According to the report from that study, “Consistent use of N95 respirators prevented 75% of respiratory infections (about the same as the Canadian study), while consistent surgical mask use was no better than low use for prevention of clinical respiratory illness (6.7% versus 9.2%, P=0.159) or of influenza-like illness (0.6% versus 1.3%, P=0.336).” In other words, surgical masks were nearly useless in preventing infection, but respirators were highly effective.” [14]

The Real Problem

The real problem with all this is that aerosol particles aren’t really stopped by masks and can remain in the air for hours, even settle on objects that we touch a thousand times a day. They go through and around masks, even stick to masks, on the outside; as the studies indicate. Since aerosol particles can travel and linger in the air, experts recommend that you stay at least six feet away from contagious people. But what difference does that make if they can linger in the air for hours as you walk around and pass by people and touch things they touched?

There are several ways pathogens can reach the respiratory system. First, if a sick person coughs or sneezes they may expel “splashes,” which are large particles (greater than 100 μm in diameter) that drop to the ground fast. Those are the things we touch. Then, we touch our phones, masks, wallets, purses, car searing wheels, door handles and so on. A mask doesn’t protect against this. The masks usually can protect against the coughing and projecting “splashes”.

Droplets are a smaller version of splashes, between 5 μm and 100 μm. Then there are small, lightweight aerosol particles of less than 5 μm that remain suspended in the air, travel over distance, and easily penetrate the respiratory system.

Aerosol particles can come from sneezes, coughs, or just exhalations of the sick person. In fact, the air around an infected person is usually loaded with aerosol particles containing viruses or bacteria. Of which, can go around and through cloth/paper masks…

The US standard is the N95 respirator, which is certified to block 95 percent of particles as small as 0.3 μm (millionths of a meter), which is about the same size as a single virus. This seems to be the only mask that can offer some kind of protection against Aerosol particles.

So, if your not wearing an N95 respirator (mask) but some sort of cloth or paper mask you may as well not be wearing a mask at all.

It seems that washing your hands and wearing a N95 respirator is the only way to really, actually, and scientifically, reduce the risk of virus loaded Aerosol particles.

If someone tells you that you need to be wearing a mask, any mask, they are weak minded ignorant sheep of a system that just wants to make the populous feel better and feel like the government is doing everything it can, and that it’s the people’s fault for the continued spread…

Sorry, your cloth/paper mask is nothing more than your self-soothing, self-righteous, virtual signaling and that your “saving lives.” When, in fact, your cloth/paper mask can’t even stop the virus, in small coughed/expelled particles, that is so small it can go between the fibers of your mask, linger in the air and rest on anything and everything you touch…

Wash your damn hands.

And if you want to live in fear of a flu virus with a 0.26% mortality rate over all, and a 0.05% for people 49 years old and under [15, 16, 17], than at least wear a N95 respirator.

Sources

https://health.usnews.com/conditions/articles/do-face-masks-work-types-and-effectiveness. Dr. Colleen Kraft, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and an associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-masks-work/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
https://www.foxnews.com/health/do-surgical-masks-protect-against-coronavirus. Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, and the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-face-masks#1
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-do-face-masks-work.html. Dr. Otto Yang, a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v2.article-info
https://www.medicinenet.com/do_face_masks_protect_you_from_the_new_coronavirus/article.htm
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/infectioncontrol/16278. C. Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
flu-related papers published online Aug. 3 by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Benjamin J. Cowling, BSc, PhD, of the University of Hong Kong
https://www.jonbarron.org/colds-flus-infectious-diseases/do-face-masks-really-help
https://www.jonbarron.org/colds-flus-infectious-diseases/do-face-masks-really-help
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/280793
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/22/coronavirus-cdc-symptoms-asymptomatic-mortality-rate/
https://fox59.com/news/cdc-estimated-35-of-coronavirus-patients-dont-have-symptoms/
https://www.coloradoci.com/bin-pdf/5270/ParticleSize.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994911/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/politics/asa-hutchison-arkansas-coronavirus/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html#cases
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-02/error-led-to-overcount-of-coronavirus-testing-in-orange-county
https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/welcome-ad?toURL=/clinical-care/texas-doctor-goes-viral-saying-covid-19-numbers-are-inflated-rgv-doctors-disagree
https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/utahs-thursday-coronavirus-numbers-inflated-from-data-backlog/
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/22/21266382/coronavirus-testing-accuracy-covid-data-manipulation
https://luetkemeyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400389
https://abc7.com/orange-county-oc-false-mistake/6292928/
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/cdcs-coronavirus-report-includes-data-that-could-artificially-inflate-testing.html

Fix Your Facebook Settings

Leave a reply

Hey, if you want to continue to use a service that violates people’s rights (kinda like Jim Crow Laws, but for the digital age, and ideology instead of race), than that’s on you. Since you don’t think violating people’s rights on the internet isn’t a big enough deal to act, then, at least, at a minimum, take SOME sort of action, any sort of action, in the name of liberty and freedom; do SOMETHING if anything:

Continue reading →

The Founders of America were More Violent and Did Worse Things

Leave a reply

WTF is wrong with the “patriots” of today?! “Follow the rule of law” oh ya? Like all the laws that oppress? Did the Patriots of the Revolutionary War follow the rule of law?! Did the founders of America follow their current rule of law?! “Condemn these acts of violence” oh ya? Like the violent acts of our Founding Fathers, you know, killing and burning the government of their day? With mass censorship and all kinds of illegal unconstitutional violations, WITH the court system utterly failing… what is the modern patriot’s response; vote harder? WTF is wrong with you pathetic fake false patriots?!

EVERY SINGLE TIME someone condemns the storming of the capital building, they are ALSO condemning the actions of the Founding Fathers of America AND every single REAL patriot during the revolution. The founding fathers and patriots of the revolution KILLED the police and government officers of their time! They WENT TO WAR for less reasons! They burned government buildings. They rioted against government actions. After years of peaceful petitions and protests, the system they were under, failed them. So, they went to war! YOUR F*CKING WELCOME.

Now, we live under a government that deems its people “nonessential” and then orders them to close their business and ending their ability to make a living. Their government forbids them from worshiping. The government imposes taxes WAY HIGHER than what the founding fathers would even fathom. Reading the court records of the election challenges, the election system is broken, and the courts refuse to anything about it. The supreme court even avoids it. The court system has failed. The police arrest people gathering to worship, and raid homes, violating the 2nd Amended and Due Process because of Red Flag laws, that the courts find lawful, yet, clearly in direct violation of constitutional rights. The ATF enacts regulations that violate constitutional rights, and these people aren’t even elected officials, and their regulations aren’t even laws. Police are militarized and kill people, act as judge and jury, and get away with it with “qualified immunity.” They murder a protester in the capital, and no investigation is considered. Yet, when one of their own is killed, omg it is going to be investigated and every single protester will be severely punished. And God for bid you exercise your free speech on Facebook, Google, and Twitter; you get punished there too AND THE GOVERNMENT WON’T FIGHT THAT EITHER.

THIS IS WHAT “PATRIOTS” OF TODAY DEFEND. “Back the Blue”?! Back the arm of the government that is used to enforce all these rights violations!

And what have all those peaceful protests done over the past decade? Not a damn thing. In fact, over the past decade there has never been such an infringement on constitutional rights since slavery and Jim Crow laws.

And what has voting done? Ya? What happen in November 2020? Did you not vote hard enough or something? See, even voting has failed.

Oh, but you can just take it to court? Ya? How’d that work out?

So, what, you just going to repeat it all again in the hopes it will work this time and fix itself? Vote harder next time, sue harder next time, protest more peacefully next time?! This is proof, you have become irrelevant, useless, and pathetic.

The founding fathers would have tried everything you’ve tried. Then, when they were at the point of uselessness and failure, they escalated in their efforts. They eventually, dare I say it, turned toward righteous violence, which, given all the reasons above, is justified. What’s your sad excuse?

What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren when they have less and less rights? “Sorry honey, we tried peacefully, and failed.” And that’s it? You gave up because you were too cowardly to become righteously aggressive against oppression? You going to fall back on “Well, at least we remained lawful.” THANK GOD not all slaves and oppressed African American’s remained lawful. THANK GOD they broke unjust laws and become more aggressive against government oppression. What’s your pathetic excuse?

The Boston Massacre, when the government killed its citizens (colonialists). Did you ever wonder what the protesters were doing? They were aggressively protesting. They were throwing rocks and things at the government troops. They were yelling and violently protesting the governments oppression. Then, the government shot and killed protesters… kinda like the what happened at the Capital when the Air Force Veteran was murdered by capital police. She was unarmed! She closer resembled the patriots than you do, sitting on your couch, eating Cheetos taking shit about those who actually took action.

Before there was even war declared or any sort of formal organizing, there were REAL Patriots who grouped together to form militias. Groups, completely not connected to the formal government military. Just a group of small business owners and farmers coming together, ready, to defend themselves and their property from government intrusion and oppression. What are you doing? Posting on Facebook and tweeting? STFU.

To the government of that day, these people, the REAL Patriots and local militias were “domestic terrorists” and even colonialists who were loyal to the government of that day, condemned them. Sound familiar? Is that you? Are you a statist loyalist? Are you a modern day Red Coat loyalist?

You should read Patrick Henry‘s “If this be treason, make the most of it!” speech. Is Patrick Henry a hero or a radical you condemn? Read Patrick Henry‘s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech, do you believe the freedom and liberty is worth more than your comfortable safe slavery?

On June 9, 1772, a local vessel out of Newport was under way to Providence when its captain baited the HMS Gaspee and led Duddington into shallow waters near Warwick. The Gaspee ran aground at a place that is now known as Gaspee Point. News of the grounding quickly reached Providence and a party of fifty-five, led by a man named John Brown, planned an attack on the ship. The following evening they surrounded and boarded the Gaspee, wounding Duddington and capturing the entire crew. All were hauled ashore and abandoned, to watch as the Gaspee was looted and then burned.

Let us never forget the Boston Tea Party. Is that something you condemn too?

Don’t call yourself a “Patriot” if you condemn the actions of REAL PATRIOTS. Shut up and take a seat, peasant.

Take notes from the Founding Fathers, Patriots of the American Revolution, and Civil Rights movement: You know, that time the Black Panther’s stormed a state capital building, armed. It’s sad, when the Black Panther Party is more of a Patriot than all those who claim to be patriotic condemn the same action of the founders of America.

What should you do?

Think about who of your closest friends and family members share the same views as the Founding Fathers and Patriots of the Revolution. Talk to them, in person, quietly, about uniting as a small militia.

Purchase burner phones. Use encrypted messaging apps. Pull cash out and store it. Start stocking up on essential goods. Come up with an local “alert system.” Be ready to pool money together to pay for legal fees. Heck, even make your unofficial militia a formal “Gun Club” or social club. So that, next time there is a gathering of potential REAL patriots, you can participate and network. Inject yourself in your local party meetings, town halls, city counsel meetings; be an influence and voice locally. The heart of the fight, is local.

Or just sit there, tweet, be irrelevant, and be a economically and system enslaved peasant, dependent on your pathetic $600 stim check from your master because your government deemed you nonessential.

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND ETHICAL ISSUES OF ‘STAY-AT-HOME’ ORDERS

Leave a reply

Emotions aside, we examine the recent “Stay at Home” orders issued by Governors and county Judges nation wide. Do they even have the power to order you to do so? Are they constitutional? Are they even ethical and moral?

First, let’s look at what the constitution says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Immediately we see that there are some direct, explicit constitutional issues with Stay at Home orders. The prohibition of religious rituals and gatherings is a big, clear, violation. The next obvious violation is completely taking away the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Making these “stay at home” orders an actual large scale violation of the rights of every single person they are imposed on.

If taken to court, no doubt, it will go up to the Supreme Court.

Due to the impact and drastic nature of the order, the Supreme Court would use their “Strict Scrutiny” test to determine if it is even Constitutional.

is necessary to a “compelling state interest”;
that the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieving this compelling purpose;
and that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose.

The first prong of the test is that It must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Does the government have a compelling governmental interest that would require explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections?

The obvious justification would be the Coronavirus and the national emergency declaration; and the need to “lower the curve” and “save lives” by being forced to “stay home.” But what happens when the actual data is argued in court and that it is on record, legally, that this virus is just a newer and nasty flu? Is a nasty flu compelling governmental interest to explicitly violating large number of individuals constitutional protections? The judicial answer to this question COULD set a VERY scary precedent.

Big government lovers, mommy daddy government dependents, socialists, and closet communist would all say that “yes, there is a compelling governmental interest to protect the welfare of the the people, the common good, from a flu virus” So, we could only speculate how the court would rule based on their view and philosophy of government, federal system and a confederation of individual states held together by a constitution that elect persons to represent that state nationally; a constitutional republic. So, let’s look at the known rulings and characteristics of the current supreme court justices.

The Supreme Court Justices

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. He is a wild card. Hailed as a ‘conservative’ he has not been one according to his rulings. He, however, does not seem to vote based on his personal ideology. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, is a stout moralist. He is conservative in his world views and interpretations and is very methodical in his opinions. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. Oddly supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he dissented in an interesting manner in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. I irony is that he, the only African American on the court, dissented, leaving an all non-African judges to rule that an all non-African jury may be bias. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, she is extremely close to retirement and his most likely holding on until after the next election (I’m sure she is hoping that Trump does not get re-elected). She is as liberal as they come. Like most liberal judges, she rules based on her emotions and ideology, then digs for legal justifications to support her preconceived liberalism. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She hates Trump and is liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing state secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, has been on the more liberal side of things. Though, not as extreme as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan, he has those sort of left leaning judicial ideals. He interprets the constitutions, looking for “purpose and consequences” not just literal textual criticism. And he seems to be more supportive of government authority and action over the people. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. He is liberal in his immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, he upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, he dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, has been on the more conservative side of things. He is a Roman Catholic and his faith is not benched in his world view. He is a literal originalist in his interpretations of the constitution. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, is most definitely a liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she dissented in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, favored imposing secularism over the free exercise of religion. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, just like Justice Sotomayor, she is liberal when it comes to constitutional interpretation and the role of government in a society and stout Democrat given her political employment backgrounds. In Department of Commerce v. New York, she shot down government information gathering about the people. A win for the people. But, not for the same reasons Justice Roberts did. She is a liberal in her immigration views. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek she disagreed with the majority court and wanted to keep or expand federal judicial power. Kisor v. Wilkie, she upheld allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, she, oddly, agreed with the majority in her opinion against private businesses and their records. Flowers v. Mississippi, she joined the majority in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, she favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, she joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, dissented from the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is without a doubt, conservative in his world view and a government minimalist. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined Justice Thomas in the dissent opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, dissented against the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, much like Justice Gorsuch, is a texutalist and originalist in his interpretations of the Constitution. He is conservative in his world view and seems to be more libertarian in his government philosophies. In Department of Commerce v. New York, he supported the government information gathering about the people so that the government could better estimate its immigration data. It was interesting that he supported a more nosy government. In Rucho v. Common Cause; Lamone v. Benisek he ruled to take away federal judicial power. That is a reduction in federalism. Kisor v. Wilkie, he dissented in allowing government agencies to have the power to interpret ambiguous regulations. Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, agreed with the majority that private businesses records are confidential and private. Flowers v. Mississippi, he joined the majority opinion in granting a new trial due to a potentially racial discriminatory jury selection. American Legion v. American Humanist Association, he favored religious freedom over imposed secularism. Apple Inc v. Pepper, he, oddly, joined the liberal majority ruling against private companies. Nielsen v. Preap, sided with the majority that the federal government can detain noncitizens with criminal records anytime.

So, given their ideologies and most recent 2019 rulings, we can have some idea about how they could view Stay at home orders.

Liberals would put more weight into the concept and principle of mandatory, government imposed stay at home for the greater good. Conservatives would put more weight in the individual freedoms and personal decision making of the people for their own good.

In general, it would seem like a split court with Justice Roberts as the wild card. It seems like he would be against closing down private businesses, given his rulings for private companies. He also seems to favor traditional religious expressions, so forcing churches to close on Sunday, specially Easter Sunday, sounds like something he would disagree with as well. It almost seems he would be 55% against Stay-at-home orders and 45% for. This would swing the court to a 5-4 decision against Stay at home orders.

Is the violation of rights from a flu like virus a compelling government interest? It seems the court would go either 5-4 or even 6-3 on this one.

The second prong is that the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

A broad stroke of declaring entire aspects of a society “non-essential” would not sit well with a majority of these justices. Forcing the closure of entire industries wouldn’t sit well either. It seems that the court would rule that these actions and orders are NOT narrowly tailored and encompasses way too much; 7-2, 6-3 court, easily.

The third prong is that The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Now this is almost laughable. There are millions and hundreds of other, least restrictive means to “flatten the curve.” But, given some of the ideologies of the court, the failure of this test may not be so clear. 5-4 ruling on this prong is a reasonable guess.

Only a totalitarian authoritarian tyrannical oppressive Court would rule “Stay at home” orders constitutional. The same kind of supreme courts that agreed with slavery and internment camps.

Now, lets apply our Liberty Test to dig deeper in this issue.

Is it supportive of the most related right?
1. OR does it create hardships and difficulties in exercising such right?
Does it expand the most related right, and or loosen them around that right?
1. OR does it create or tighten them, increased limitation and contracting that right?
Is it equally levied on all people?
1. OR do some people receive special treatment or are targeted unequally?
Does it address a extremely specific issue?
1. OR is it too vast, broad, vague, and subjective?

First prong; No, it does not support ANY constitutional rights. One may argue, it supports the right to life and pursuit of happiness but… this virus isn’t any more deadly than a peek flu season AND there are WORSE things that KILL MORE people. And the “pursuit of happiness” is not protected as quarantine and unemployment will cause an increase in poverty and suicide… With that said, we can see that it will create hardships that didn’t exist prior. Most defiantly NOT supportive of any of our rights.

Second prong; No, it does not expand any rights, nor does it loosen any government regulations or laws around any rights. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. As the secondary prong explores, it creates, increases, and tightens limitations and restrictions around just about all rights. We can conclude that this is the most hateful act towards human rights.

Third prong; No, the simple fact that the government can just deem whomever it pleases as essential while others non-essential is the same as picking favorites and showing bias and partiality in a society that claims to be defenders of equality. It is NOT levied equally on all people. Some people are given special treatment through being deemed essential and others are targeted unequally by being deemed non-essential and ordered to close and stay home. This is the opposite of equality and freedom for all.

Fourth prong; No, it does not. The issue is so broad in that the issue encompasses the entire planet. The issue is a virus. There are hundreds of viruses, all over the place, all the time, every year, everywhere. The broadness, vagueness, vastness, and subjective nature opens the door wide open for governmental abuse and large scale control and oppression; justified by a virus.

With the Constitutionality of the orders in question and doubted, and its massive failure for freedom and liberty, it then makes us question the moral and ethical nature of these sorts of orders.

The statistics to support the claim of how dangerous the virus is, are skewed and heavily flawed. At this point, with the sheer number of people that have possibly been infected, even with the CDC guided inflated death count; there is a reasonable argument that it is just another, new, flu strand; with a fairly similar mortality rate of the seasonal flu. This can not be discounted. But it exposes the flawed proclamation of the scariness and dangerous-ness of the virus; leans more toward propaganda.

The orders are justified with the idea of “safety, for the common good… a little sacrifice for the community” and “security from a common enemy, the virus” The ethical problem is that those are the same justifications used for Japanese Internment Camps and a host of other unethical government oppression… so to use them, would also require you to justify Internment Camps to remain consistent and prevent being a logical hypocrite. The Supreme Court also upheld Japanese Internment Camps too… So that is the ethical question:

Is targeting a certain group and forcing them to do something against their will and in violation of their rights; moral and ethical?

This question answers both “Stay at home” orders and Japanese Internment Camps because they both depend on the same logic and justifications. Let’s go through the logical similarities and elements:

“Non-essentials” are identified and targeted.
Religious groups were targeted with “stay at home” assembly prohibitions.
1. Japanese Americans were identified and targeted.
The Stay at home orders force “Non-essentials” and Religious groups, to do something against their will (stay at home, can’t go to work, etc.)
1. Japanese Americans were forced to do something against their will and couldn’t go to work.
The Stay at home orders violate the 1st Amendment rights of “Non-essentials” even “essentials”
1. Japanese Americans 1st Amendment rights were violated.
The Stay at home orders are needed for “safety and security” during a government declared serious event (national emergency)
1. Japanese Internment Camps were for “safety and security” during during a government declared serious event (war time)

Logic proves there that if you justify one, it justifies the other. So the real question you have to ask is:

Were Japanese Internment Camps unethical and immoral?

You can’t say Japanese Internment Camps were immoral but Stay at Home orders are not; because, again, as logically proven above, they follow the exact same logical expression.

If you defend “Stay at Home” orders, you then must defend Japanese Internment Camps, to remain logical and rationally consistent. If not, you are illogical, irrational, and hypocritical.

We can even evaluate Jim Crow laws, using the same line of logic and rational thought. We know that Jim Crow laws and Japanese Internment Camps ARE UNETHICAL and IMMORAL; therefore, we can conclude that Stay at Home orders that depend on the very same logical must then be unethical and immoral as well.

Though, we should NOT solely depend on The Supreme Court to determine our ethical and moral grounds. They too defended Jim Crow laws (the “separate but equal” ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson) and Japanese Internment Camps (Korematsu v. United States). And let us not forget the host of other court rulings throughout history that WERE and ARE and forever will be unethical and immoral (Historic American Government Oppression). Ethics and Morality transcends the Supreme Court. They did not invent it or define it. They either agree with it and defend it, or violate it.

Those who defend “Stay at Home” orders, would have also defended Japanese Internment Camps and Jim Crow laws in those times. They may say that they wouldn’t have but their thinking and cultural emotions is of the present. But their logic is timeless. And the logic, if applied in that era, within that era’s thinking and cultural emotions, would have led them to the same conclusion; the justification of taking away rights for the common good.

STAY AT HOME, FOLLOW ORDERS, OBEY, COMPLY, FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Leave a reply

It is amazing to see the sheer amount of people demanding that OTHER people forfeit, suspend, neglect, and give up their freedoms because of a fearful feeling imposed by unreliable stats and unconstitutional government orders. Even vilifying people who exercise their constitutional rights. What is the rationale behind this? Are their concerns legitimize?

The reality of the situation

Yes, a lot of people have tested positive for the Coronavirus. But as we have extensively researched, we don’t really know how many because the ideological agendas. If we do basic math, using various data centers we can conclude that the average mortality rate of the virus is 0.793% (see below).

Here come all the sheeple saying:

“bUt yOuR noT a ViruOloGisT!”

Your right, which is why we depend on data and statistics of the experts; see below. So, with that pathetic argument out of the way, let’s continue to look at the expert data.

Not even 1% mortality rate overall and under 60 years old, which is 92% of the world’s population. If, only *66,722,200 world wide are infected, that means, 0.85% of the world is infected… not even 1% And of that 0.85% infected, only 0.793% of that 0.85% population may, statistically, die; we can estimate that 0.0068% of the world’s population, under 60, may die. That is 6 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT… roughly 529,107 people, world wide, under 60 years would will die. Sounds bad right?

Heart disease killed 7 million people in 2000; 7,000,000 deaths world wide! Ischaemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 17 million deaths in 2016. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years [8]. 29x more deadly than COVID-19!

Did you give up your rights to fight Ischaemic heart disease and stroke? Why not? It’s worse than COVID-19!

But there’s more:

Half of these will kill more people world wide than COVID-19. And most of these numbers can’t be inflated or statistically manipulated.

Now, the numbers for the population that are over 60 years old is more scary, anywhere between 5-9% mortality rate… but they only make up 8% of the world population. And due to their reduce chance of mobility and travel, they are less likely to become infected as they are more likely to remain at home or be more stationary.

Now, using logic, reasoning, and math; we can remove the emotionalistic indoctrination of fear and worry and see that this really isn’t as bad as governments, government puppets, and government employees make it out to be. We can see through the propaganda and manipulation.

Here comes another sheeple argument:

“bUt DonT YoU cAre AbOuT peOPle?

I’m glad sheeple bring up this point. Let’s look at it:

195 MILLION jobs have been wiped out, world wide, and “More than four fifths of workers globally live in countries affected by full or partial lockdown measures… Workers in the informal sector – who account for 61% of the global workforce or 2 billion people – will need income support just to survive and feed their families if their jobs disappear” [9, 11]. The Australians report, “We calculate that between 17% and 28% of Australian workers – 2.2 million to 3.6 million people – could be out of work in the coming weeks as a direct result of the spatial distancing measures now in place. If they are not already,”[10]

The government(s) did this, not the virus.

In America, the “Gross domestic product will plummet an annualized 25% from April through June after a smaller setback in the first quarter and the jobless rate will hit 12.6%, the highest since the 1940s, according to the median forecasts in Bloomberg’s monthly survey of 69 economists… “Even if the economy starts to re-open in mid-May, more than 20 million Americans will have lost their job with the economy likely having contracted around 13% peak-to-trough, more than three times deeper than the global financial crisis,” The Bloomberg survey was conducted April 3 through Thursday, when a report showed another 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits, suggesting the jobless rate is already approaching 15%.” [12]

The virus didn’t do this, America did.

And it could be even worse, up to 47 million jobs lost and an unemployment rate of 32% [13]

Entire industries, small businesses, mom and pop shops that provide a living for entire families; deemed non-essential by government. Ending the services that family depended on, as essential, for paying bills and putting food on the table.

The government did that, not the virus.

Even Forbes noticed it; “A disturbing trend noticed during the outbreak was the heavy-handed nature of the government. Whether you agree or disagree with the closing of businesses and orders to stay home, it smacks of “Big Brother,” 1984 Orwellian stuff. Government officials telling citizens to “rat” on their fellow Americans seems scarily like something you’d expect under an authoritarian regime.” [14]

Then, as everyone is hurting for money, cities and police departments started going around and issuing citations and fines for not obeying Orwellian orders [20]!

And those who preach “care about others, stay in side” clearly don’t care that a majority of people who will be suffering from these government actions; far worse than the virus. Suicide rates are expected to rise because of all this! [15, 17] And this is caring for others? Substance abuse is on the rise [16]. Might have something to do with the government declaring alcohol sales as essential and church not.

The Indoctrinated Sheeple Say The Darnedest Things:

This propaganda hit piece in the LA Times about a small protest in LA quotes an “expert” as saying this:

“This blows me away,” she said. “People are dying — and at an alarming rate!”
The healthcare worker said she had seen a friend from her Huntington Beach church moments earlier. “He said he is tired of his rights being taken away,” the woman said.
“This has nothing to do with politics … It’s science!” she added. “This is a mob mentality,” she said, noting the police presence but lack of action [19].

Actually, math says that random “expert” is wrong. In fact, in LA the mortality rate is dropping at an alarming rate as they test more, discover more, more recover, and less die… But why does that person think that? Because they were told so…

LOL “its science” She would be the kind of person, in the 14th century, that would have believed the earth was flat, simply because of the leading science said so, without question.

And, secondly, her friends rights ARE being taken away. Do we need to do another Bill of Rights lesson? Sure:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

LOL the government is doing exactly that. Enforcing laws/orders that ARE prohibiting the free exercise of religion AND the right of peaceful assembly. This healthcare worker, is a moron, indoctrinated tool.

Then, in San Diego, a woman has been notified she’s facing a $1,000 fine or jail time for organizing a “freedom rally” against COVID-19 orders [20, 21]. Naomi Soria, 27, on Wednesday confirmed she was facing penalties for the downtown protest that drew hundreds. Later, she announced another rally this Sunday in Pacific Beach. The San Diego Police Department confirmed it has contacted the City Attorney’s Office “requesting their review to issue charges against the protest organizer for violating the county health order by organizing a gathering,”

The county health order supersedes her Constitutional right to peacefully assemble?!

The Center for American Liberty should take this trash all the way to the supreme court, win, and then she should sue the shit out of the city.

Do we care about our community?

I care so much about people, that I am willing to fight and die for their freedom and liberty from oppression, for their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Even if they don’t. Even if you don’t.

And you clearly don’t. You support that which is going to cause more harm than the actual virus.

And, they clearly don’t. They are more than willing to follow orders and comply to something that will harm their community long term and worse than the virus.

Americans want the government to tell them what to do; COVID-19 proved this.
Americans want the government to provide for them; COVID-19 proved this.
Americans want to depend on the government; COVID-19 proved this.
Americans obey and comply with unconstitutional orders instead of resist them; COVID-19 proved this.
Americans blindly believe the fearmongering of the government and big government puppets; COVID-19 proved this. China spits out some trash data, the World Health Organization regurgitates it, and dumb gullible American tools eat it up with out question.

Police departments declare that “protesting is a non-essential activity“ . (The same shitty police departrment that shot someone as they were running away [18]). PROTESTING IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

local governments dictate where and when you can an can’t go with essential/non-essential declarations and curfews. LIBERTY IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

Governments declare alcohol and abortion clinics [23] are essential and can remain open but churches and Christians can’t worship on their holiest of days (Easter). THEN even force church services to stop and fine people… people who may be out of work and in financial trouble… FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AND ASSEMBLE IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

Facebook and Twitter are banning free speech and free press about all the problematic data [24, 25]. This article may even, eventually, get banned (even though I quote all the sources they deem as reliable).

EVERY SINGLE RIGHT, IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, HAS BEEN VIOLATED!

For what?

Over fear of a virus with a 0.79% mortality rate…

If you believe that is justifiable, you are a damn indoctrinated government tool and you deserve to have your rights taken away.

YOU are allowing this! the prosecution of whistleblowers, free speech, and free press through Julian Assange [6b] and Edward Snowden [7b]; which exposed the governments involvement in illegally spying on citizens and murder of civilians; police targeting Christians who worshiped on their holiest day when the local governments ordered them not to, 2020 [1b]. Raleighn Police Department and in San Diego acting against peaceful protests in 2020 [2b, 20]. Virginia Governor declares a state of emergency prior to peaceful protests in 2019 [3b].

Yes, Freedom and Liberty is more important than the Coronavirus.

Time To Get Organized

Mortality Rate calculations:
1. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  1. Accessed: 4/23/2020
  2. Cases: 2,668,889 (confirmed)
  3. Deaths: 186,324
    1. Includes “probable deaths” per CDC guidelines.
      * Which means the total deaths may be inflated.
  4. (deaths) / (cases) = 0.06981 or 6%
  5. Does not include “probable cases”
    1. Antibody test finds up to 55x more cases [1].
    2. LA county reported 7,994 cases.
    3. Antibody estimates 221,000 to 442,000 cases.
    4. Only 4% of the infected are being confirmed. 96% of infected are not being confirmed.
      1. (confirmed cases) / 4 = 667,222 is 1% of est. confirmed cases of the total estimated infected world wide.
      2. (Est. 1% Cases) * 100 = 66,722,200, est. world wide cases.
      3. (deaths) / (Est. cases w/ antibody test) = 0.00279 or 0.2%
2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
  1. Accessed: 4/23/2020
  2. Confirmed Cases: 802,583
    1. Does not included “probable cases”
      * Which means numbers may actually be higher
  3. Deaths: 44,575
    1. Does include “probable deaths”
      * Which means numbers may be inflated
  4. (Deaths, 44575) / (Cases, 802583) = 0.055 or 5%
  5. Considering the LA antibody test finds 96% more infected:
    1. (Confirmed cases, 802583) / 4 = 200,645 or 1% of estimated infected.
    2. (Est. 1% Cases, 200645) * 100 = 20,064, 575 estimated actual cases w/ antibody test.
    3. (deaths) / (Est. cases w/ antibody test, 20,064,575) = 0.00222 or 0.2%
3. *Both conclusions are conservative estimates of the lower end of the antibody testing estimations.
4. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
  1. A study that studied all known data accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases.
  2. Ages 1-49, est less than 0.161% mortality rate.
  3. Ages 50-59, est 0.595% mortality rate.
  4. Ages 60-69, est 1.93% mortality rate.
  5. Ages 70-79, est 4.28% mortality rate.
  6. Ages 80+, est 7.8% mortality rate.
  7. Overall est mortality rate: 0.657%
  8. 60 years old or under, est. mortality rate: 0.145%
5. Germany death rate: 0.59% [5]
6. Switzerland death rate: 1.64% [5]
7. Austria death rate: 0.57% [5]
8. Australia death rate: 0.33% [5]
9. South Korea death rate: 1.49% [5]
10. China’s corrected death rate: 1.38% [4]
Combine and average the death rates of 60 years or younger (92% of the worlds population[6]), world wide, that include probable cases along with probable deaths and accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases:
0.793%

World Population: 7,779,751,100 [7]
Wold Population, under 60 years old: 7,157,371,012
Est. World Cases: *66,722,200

Est World Infected: (Est World Cases) / (World Pop) = 0.00857 or 0.857%
Est. World Mortality Rate of those Infected: (66,722,200) * 0.00739 = 493,077 (est deaths world wide, <60yo)
Percentage of the world mortality, under 60 years old: (Est. Word Wide deaths, <60yo) / (World Pop, <60yo) = 0.0000688 or 0.0068%

Sources:

COVID-19 Data

Leave a reply

To help sift through all the BS and politicization of this situation, we will sift through the data and sources to help isolate the REAL experts and the REAL reliable numbers. That why when some nutjob trys to spit numbers to justify taking away your rights, you have better, more sound, ammunition, per-say.

But, first thing we need to get out of the way:

Are the numbers from China usable?

They fudge their economic numbers [1, 8].
They fudge their political numbers, such as government killings at protests.
They punished doctors that started speaking out about the virus [2, 4].
They tried to fudge numbers about the SARS outbreak [7].

The Diplomat, a journalism site focused on events in Asia, published a mildly fair overview of the data situation in china, and at the end states “the world should not automatically embrace the new numbers coming from the country. With a cautious note about China’s statistical unreliability in mind, we should continue to closely observe…” [2] Even Brookings Institute, a reliable economic think-tank, doesn’t trust numbers coming out of China [1]. Even the unreliable and biased Time reported the unreliability of China’s data [5]. Then there is PBS, who takes a softer approach to criticizing the Communist Party of China, still provides ample facst as to why they can’t be trusted [7]. The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said during a CNBC interview [6], “incredibly frustrating” to work with the Chinese government to obtain data on the coronavirus, “which will ultimately be the solution to both getting the vaccine and attacking this risk.” And that is true. Then we have the “U.S. intelligence community” and their “classified report” claiming China’s numbers are fake. But, they are extremely hard to trust, period. But, Bloomberg then starts to go off on this political conspiracy theory about an “attempt to divert attention from surging deaths in the U.S. and other Western countries” and then makes the sadly biased comment “There was no way for serious data faking to occur in today’s China…” [9]. Notice they added the word “serious.” So they secretly admit there was some faking but too coward to openly say it; bias. Even the New York Times, as dishonest as they are, seems to support this CIA claim. [11]. And to expose unreliable reporting from outlets such as Bloomberg, Forbes reports: “Maybe our numbers aren’t entirely giving the full picture of the coronavirus“, China health officials said on Tuesday [March 31, 2020][10].

Now, with all these sources, some more reliable than others, we can paint a more complete picture of the reliability of the data coming out of China. And their data, given the totality of analysis and reporting; is unreliable.

Since we CAN determine that the numbers coming out of China are unreliable, does that make them unusable? Yes. If you incorporate skewed data into a formula, the result is skewed. If you add false information into a equation, the solution is incorrect. The same logic applies to using China’s numbers when determining the truth about COVID-19.

People will argue something like “but you can still get a general idea,” but can you? You aren’t even sure how accurate your “general idea” is when it is dependent on inaccurate information… Your “general idea” may be WAY off, but you wouldn’t know.

What about The World Health Organization? Are they reliable?

Welp, considering THEY are allowing China to pick the people who will investigate human rights violations says it all. That’s like putting Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin on the Human Rights Commission to help better the world… yet, that is exactly what the WHO did.

“On Jan. 19, the WHO told the world “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

What they didn’t tell the world, but they knew all too well, is that China was engaged in a campaign of lies and cover-ups to hide the viral devastation their nation had unleashed. In fact, China had been tracking the person-to-person transmission for more than a month by the time that tweet went out.

The same goes for Bruce Aylward, a senior official at the World Health Organization who infamously hung up on a reporter asking about Taiwan’s (far more effective) handling of coronavirus. Mr. Aylward was apparently afraid of offending the Chinese regime” [12].

Even the left leaning, The Hill, reported that “Tedros [WHO Chief] apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and, after meeting with Xi in January, has helped China to play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the COVID-19 outbreak.”[13]

But listen to what the WHO says. “We have met the [Chinese] president. We have seen the level of knowledge he has on the outbreak, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a Feb. 12 briefing. “Don’t you appreciate that kind of leadership?” “China has done many good things to slow down the virus,” Mr. Tedros added. “There is no spinning here.”

So, there we have it, the WHO is nothing more than China’s mouth piece and lap dog. Where they will just regurgitate China’s numbers. Rendering them, unreliable as well.

So, what numbers can we trust? Can we even trust the numbers being calculated by America?

Well, the CDC told all of America to include just about anyone that died as a COVID-19 death… even if it is possible they died from something else [14]. In their statement, it reads: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

So, what if it was the seasonal flu, which kills tens of thousands, every year? Are they just going to assume another 20,000 deaths was COVID-19 and not what it actually may have been?! Guess so.

So, a couple of states jump on this. The more they report, the more money and resources they get. New York’s death count jumped by an additional 33% just by added the deaths of those who they assumed died by COVID-19 or may have contributed. But, they aren’t sure, they don’t know, it wasn’t confirmed. A lot of other states are following suit. Adding to their numbers UNCONFIRMED cases of people that MAY have died by some other means BUT counting them as though it was COVID-19.

But then we get the Defenders of Statism using arguments like “We need to trust the expert educated guesses.” Well, let’s do to Logical Thinking Experiment.

We must trust expert opinions.
Supreme Court Justices are experts on justice.
We must trust Supreme Court Justice opinions as Justice.

Very logical right? But what happens when we throw in this truth:

4. The Supreme Court opinion ruled in favor of slavery, Separate but equal, and Japanese Internment Camps.
5. Therefore, given the logic above (1-3), we must trust the Supreme Court opinions are Just because they are the experts.

Suddenly doesn’t sit well, trusting the experts.

The next Defenders of Statism may say: “We can trust experts on numbers, because number’s don’t lie.” Let’s rephrase the logical expression to be more applicable.

We must/should trust expert opinions.
An expert is having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.

In these two logical premises, we see something missing. The fact that humans are prone to bias and error. Holding tightly to Premise 1 and 2 is also known as Blind Faith. Blind in that it avoids and hides from the the reality that even experts, can be bias and wrong. But, let’s keep this logical expression going.

3. NASA are experts in rocket propulsion and space travel.
4. Therefore, we must (blindly) trust NASA’s expert opinions.

Sounds valid. In fact, 99% of the time this is true. But, again, has history proves, they are prone to error. Serious error.

The Apollo 1 fire, Apollo 13 malfunction, and the Challenger explosion are all proof of their limited expertise.

But what about when it comes to research and studies?

In 1981 Harvard researcher John Darsee was found to be faking data in a heart study. Eventually investigators at the National Institutes of Health discovered that data for most of his 100 published studies had been fabricated.
Cardiac-radiology specialist Robert Slutsky, who in 1985 resigned from the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine after colleagues began to wonder how he turned out a new research article every 10 days. University investigators concluded he had altered data and lied about the methods he used. To establish verisimilitude, Slutsky often persuaded scientists more prominent than he to put their names on his articles.
William McBride, an Australian obstetrician, was hailed as a whistle-blowing visionary in 1961 when he sounded a warning about the dangers of thalidomide. Two decades later, in 1982, McBride published a report about a morning-sickness drug called Debendox that, he claimed, clearly caused birth defects in rabbits. Merrell Dow took the drug off the market amid an avalanche of lawsuits. But McBride had altered data in research carried out by assistants. The results showed Debendox had no ill effects. After years of investigation, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud in 1993 by a medical tribunal.
In 1983, astronomer Carl Sagan coauthored an article in Science that shook the world: “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” warned that nuclear war could send a giant cloud of dust into the atmosphere that would cover the globe, blocking sunlight and invoking a climatic change similar to that which might have ended the existence of dinosaurs. In a 1990 article in Science, Sagan and his original coauthors admitted that their initial temperature estimates were wrong. They concluded that an all-out nuclear war could reduce average temperatures at most by 36 degrees Fahrenheit in northern climes. The chilling effect, in other words, would be more of a nuclear autumn.
In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society’s November magazine. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail.
Summarizing a study on women and marriage by two Yale sociologists and a Harvard economist, several news agencies reported that single women at 35 had only a 5 percent chance of ever marrying, and unmarried women at 40 were “more likely to be killed by a terrorist.” Analyzing data from the 70,000 households the authors of the original study had not looked into what percentage of the over-30 women had made a conscious choice to put off marriage. Indeed, U.S. Census Bureau statistician Jeanne Moorman’s follow-up projections indicate that of unmarried women ages 30 to 34, 54 percent will marry; of those ages 35 to 39, 37 percent will marry; and of those ages 40 to 44, 24 percent will marry.

And there are hundreds, thousands more examples of how Blind Faith in the experts can be more harmful than good.

So, here we are again, proving that Blind Faith in the CDC’s numbers is sheer sheep-like willing ignorance of the possibilities of bias and error. The CDC is funded by the federal government. The federal government continually expands power and control. Therefore, we can conclude that the more powerful and well funded the government is, the better the CDC is. Motive for bias. The staff and “experts” are paid for and funded by tax payers too. Motive for bias. This isn’t even accounting for the real possibility of human error due to the fact they are counting anyone that died, unconfirmed, but may have shown symptoms of COVID-19.

These just INCREASE the risk of bias and error within the collection and interpretation of data. New York’s death count suddenly jumped after the CDC put out their Alert 2 guidelines for counting even unconfirmed possible “expert guesses.”

There are even instances where states REMOVE death counts because of various errors. Colorado’s death count fell because they removed duplicates [15]. Pennsylvania removed A LOT because of how unreliable their data collection (from the experts) was [16]. This just proves that there is an increased risk of bias counting and errors in data collection.

Therefore, even America’s numbers are inflated and skewed by including deaths of people who were unconfirmed and may not have even had COVID-19.

*UPDATE 5/25/2020*

Shocker, the CDC released a revised report which dropped the mortality rate to seasonal flu levels… 0.26% over all, and 0.05% for people under 49 years old…[17, 18]. “ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.” [18]

BUT DO YOU NOTICE SOMETHING IN COMMON?

China manipulates their numbers.

The World Health Organization embraces manipulated numbers.

America inflates their numbers.

America slanders China for what the CDC officially recommends doing.

It’s almost like governments WANT scary numbers and statistical manipulation…

You make this pandemic scary enough, deadly enough, that the people are so scared they cry for help and big mommy daddy government comes to their rescue and people then start to really believe the government is their savior.

But, you don’t want it too deadly as to not kill off your loyal subjects and peasants or be unable to show how heroic the government is by controlling it and “flatten the curve.” The government wants to appear to be the hero of the people. The champion of the common good. Leads people to desire the protection of the government even more.

They you play politics as a distraction. America blames China, China blames America, the WHO plays both sides. And on and on it goes. When BOTH desire to increase the fear and power over their people. Or in China’s case, maintain the control and power over their people while America expands their power over the people.

Then those in government dependent careers, who are already in love with and dependent on the government, argue for more government resources, more government control over the situation, and will be the very ones who praise the expansion of government for more control in the future.

And this isn’t new in the history of world governments. Not even new for America.

This is the greatest expansion of government control since Japanese Internment Camps of World War II. Except, the entire population instead of one ethnic group is effected. Remember, the justification for the internment camps was for “the greater good,” built off of fear of Imperial Japanese spies…

Now, change out “Japanese Internment Camps” with “forced quarantine” for the “common good.” And change out “fear of spies” for “fear of COVID-19.” So, government oppression and control remains the same in principle, just different tools and justifications for it. If you defend and advocate for government forced quarantines for the common good, you, in principle, would defend Japanese Internment Camps…

How can you argue against Jim Crow laws, when they did the same thing in principle? Jim Crow laws limited movement of American citizens, for, at that time, though incorrect, for the common good; “separate but equal” was the justification at that time, for the common good. Now, thankfully, seen as racist laws, they were the same as now in principle. But instead of imposing the same principles of governing on a select population, they are applied to the entire population, for the common good.

So at the heart of ‘why’ is this:

America, politicians and majority of its people, liberal and conservative, desire a socialist totalitarian state. And you can’t say they don’t when they, the majority, support, defend, and advocate for socialist policies, efforts, and government actions and control…

Statistical manipulation leads to fear.

The government then swoops in and addresses those fears.

The people feel more willingly reliant on the government.

The government then assumes the responsibility for administration of goods and services for the collective, common good…

‘socialism’

nounso·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The local, state, and federal governments collectively decided the administration of goods and services by, itself, determining what goods and services were “essential” and “non-essential” and then ordered the closure of “non-essential” for the collective “common good.”

America, by definition, implemented through threat of force, socialist policies. And that is by definition. period.

At the end of the day, don’t believe everything your told, even if it is in the form of numbers and fancy charts. Think logically, rationally, critically, and free; especially if it is coming from a politically charged government…

Some Interesting Historical Quotes to Think About:

Screenshot_2020-04-17 Vladimir Lenin Quotes

Screenshot_2020-04-17 John Berger Quotes

Screenshot_2020-04-17 Yakov Smirnoff Quotes

*Facebook can flag this as “misinformation” and continue to shadow-ban like Nazis all they want, but we base this entire article of reports and sources that they feel is official news outlets. Just see all our citations above and sources below. If flagged and banned, it is the logical critical free-thinking they fear.

Does Gun Control Even Work?

Leave a reply

France has crazy strong gun control… experienced a mass shooting on Tuesday. “Chekatt had been radicalized in prison and was being monitored by French intelligence services since at least 2015 due to his suspected religious extremism. Authorities did not say which religion; however, supporters of the Islamic State terror group were celebrating the shooting online, according to the U.S.-based SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi communications worldwide…Before opening fire on the Christmas market in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Chekatt, 29, yelled “Allahu Akbar,” Paris’ public prosecutor said. Chekatt escaped the scene in a taxi.” Another interesting fact is that France has had more deaths from mass shootings than the US had during the entire presidency of Obama. [1]. How odd. Their gun laws are more strict than California and Chicago. While French gun ownership is estimated to be around 19 per 100 people.

England has a higher per capita crime rate than America. Per 1,000 people, England is rank 2nd in the world at 109 per 1,000; while America is 41 per 1,000 (22nd in the world) [2]. In murders, England is 6.6 per 1,000; while America is 5.6 per 1,000 [3]. The crime of assault victims, or people who claim to be a victim of assault, England is 2.8% percent, while America is 1.2% [4]. Hu, that’s interesting because England as crazy struct Gun Control laws… but that doesn’t seem to phase criminals. And their gun ownership is roughly 4.6 to 5 per 100.

Finland, Switzerland and Norway have very high gun ownership. Finland is 32 per 100 people and Norway has 28 per 100 people. Switzerland has 27.6 per 100. Guess what their gun violence is like? [7][8] Finland homicide rate is 0.028 per 1,000! Switzerland homicide rate is 1 per 1,000! Norway homicide rate is 0.6 per 1,000! WHAT? How is this possible if they (1) have a high firearm ownership, and (2) have lax gun control laws??? Yep, you guessed it, GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE! People kill people. A culture and a society that devalues human life does.

Can Gun Control Laws Reduce Murder?

Well, when we look at this globally, France and England point us to an obvious answer. NO. Because if the laws themselves did, France and England would have different numbers; the fact is, they have worse numbers than America. They have more crime per capita, a lower gun ownership, AND stricter gun control laws. But let us look at this from a domestic perspective.

California is number one in the nation for Gun Control laws [8]. Since they have done such an amazing job restricting their citizens from gun ownership, how well does that translate in their crime stats? As of 2016, they are at 90 per 1,000 of violent crime and has been fairly steady over the past decade or so. That is almost as much as England’s TOTAL CRIMES per capita. Here’s the kicker, The firearm homicide rate, which adjusts for population changes, increased by 15 percent from 2014 to 2016. [9] How can it increase when they are the strictest? Lets look even deeper into a City with the absolute strictest gun control.

Chicago is so bad, there is even a website called https://heyjackass.com/ that tracks the violence in that city. A person is shot EVERY 2:55 minutes and murdered ever 14 minutes in Chicago! They BANNED handguns in the city limits from 1982 until 2010 when the Supreme Court had to rule their ban unconstitutional (McDonald vs. City of Chicago). Then in 2012, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Illinois concealed carry ban as unconstitutional. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence rated Chicago as rank 8 IN THE NATION for their gun control laws. From 1982 to 2012, people could not conceal carry. How was their crime rate during the all out ban? They averaged 500 to 600 homicides a year! During the Ban!! [10]

What does all this mean?

So when we look at it from a city perspective, state perspective and from a global perspective we see the truth about a couple things:

More gun ownership does NOT cause more crime.
1. Finland, Switzerland and Norway = high gun ownership, has low crime. Relaxed gun laws, and has low crime.
More gun control does NOT reduce crime.
1. California and Chicago = lower gun ownership, still has high crime. Strict gun control laws, still has high crime.

What is the cause for gun violence and high crime?

A culture of violence, undisciplined, and devaluation of human life. Finland, Switzerland and Norway have a high standard of living and high cultural morals. They see weapons as essential for defense and national sovereignty; as WWII showed these nations. America on the other hand are spoiled, undisciplined, immature adults that no longer have the same value for life as it once did. They are so spoiled that they are losing the notion that weapons are essential for defense and national sovereignty.

England shows that you can take away all the guns, but you will still have murder just the same. France still has mass shootings. California has continuous crime despite strict laws. Chicago’s homicide rate stayed the same during the unconstitutional gun ban.

What About New York?

They like to point to their strict gun control laws and the reduction in homicides. What they DON’T tell you is that these low rates, were just as low in 1960 and all the decades prior. PRIOR to ANY modern gun control law. AND during that time, they had a higher gun ownership rate as well. [11] THIS only supports the idea of American societal progression of a violence culture. The historic spike in homicides is not due to guns but due to the cultural trend of morality.

It doesn’t matter if there were 1 gun control law or 50,000 or even a flat out gun ban… criminals don’t obey the laws.

What do Gun Control Laws Do?

Criminals will find guns (see France and Chicago during the gun ban). Does it make it harder for them to get? Is it hard for drug addicts to attain illegal drugs? NOPE. If they want it, they will find it. BUT those who do try to obey the laws, THEY will be restricted from gun ownership. NON-Criminals, law abiding citizens face the complexity and frustrations of attempting purchase weapons for self defense. THEY face the restriction of their FREEDOM.

If people want to kill, they will either find a way to get a gun OR just use another tool; like a knife for example. England is proof of this as well [12]. Violence with a knife has increased by 22% across England! “the biggest annual increase ever recorded…Almost 40,000 offenses involving knives or sharp weapons were recorded by police in the year” See, they don’t need guns. They have kitchen knives.

We aren’t even touching on how many times a good guy with a gun has stopped a criminal with a gun. A study conducted by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee found that “American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year.” [13]. If they did not have a superior tool for self defense, that would have made more than 1.9 million victims of crimes…

So what?

Exactly. Gun Control advocates won’t even listen to these facts; whats the point? Politicians don’t care about these facts either. Ignorant, or 2nd Amendment hating voters, don’t care about these facts and the logic behind it. They hate guns, and hate you for owning them. To them, you are a potential murderer anyway. The intolerance and judgementalism of gun owners is amazing. But it goes both ways.

Those who enjoy their right to self defense are cowards in America; just like those in France and England. As their ability to defend against violence has been reduced; this is becoming even more true for Americans. No one stands up and fights back. When gun control advocates open their ignorant mouths, most gun rights advocates tend to be more quite. THAT ISN’T WORKING. The silence of gun owners is failing America and allowing the ignorance of Gun Control spread like a wild fire.

Either sell your guns and STFU or grab your weapon and TAKE A STAND.

1. https://crimeresearch.org/2017/02/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

2. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

3. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders/WHO

4. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Assault-victims

5. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

6. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-8588611

7. https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/rapporter/Documents/2018-2019/Dokument1/Revisjonsrapport2017PolitietsBehandlingAvSoknaderOmVaapentillatelse.pdf

8. https://www.inverse.com/article/37141-state-gun-law-maps

9. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article177540461.html

10. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-since-1957-20160302-htmlstory.html

11. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0105/fewest-annual-murders-shooting-incidents-ever-recorded-the-modern-era#/0

12. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-knife-crime-rise-stabbing-murders-reasons-increase-london-why-a8326171.html

13. https://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Because The Government Said So

Leave a reply

Well, it’s officially obvious, a majority of Americans desire peaceful slavery over a dangerous freedom. They are willing to obey a system that puts their human rights on hold for the flu. They are so easily influenced by constant media that they are thrown in to a panic over toilet paper. They claim to hate socialism and the bullying of the moral majority, yet praise a president that is exerting extreme government control and influence. Government officials declaring that churches can’t meet. Government officials telling you where you can and cannot go. This is reality.American freedom is an illusion.

Suddenly all these government regulations can be put on hold to better the economy… if that’s true, why have them at all to always have a better economy?

And who are these officials and experts we are listening to? They are all part of a system that is completely dependent on the government. Of course their going to support MORE governmental action. Of course they are going to demand more government spending. Of course they are going to demand government bailouts. Oh and don’t forget, down the road, they are going to demand increasing the taxes on the rich and the corporations to help fund more massive government programs and expansions to “ensure this doesn’t happen again.” But, it will, can’t control nature and China, Communist Massive Government Control China couldn’t even contain it. But these officials and experts will cry for more government anyway.

Then the government tells free people they can’t go to church, can’t go out and eat, can’t go to work. Then they tell the private business they can’t open. Then, what do you know, it turns into an economic problem! With the government coming into save the day, of the problem they created… And these “free” people, obey like slaves. Then complain about “how am I going to feed my family or pay my bills if I can’t go to work…” STFU you slave, you agreed to go home, you agreed to close your business, you obeyed like a bitch, now live the consequences.

When scared, a nation’s true colors show. Suddenly they want mommy daddy government to save them because they failed to be prepared. They want closed borders. They want to be hold what to do. That saying, “weak-men create hard times” is a historical fact, and now, we have nothing but a majority of weak men, creating a hard time. And it’s only going to get worse.

Not a single freedom group in California are in the streets. They are okay with the government suspending their constitutional rights, over a flu virus. And don’t worry, these authoritarian politicians are taking notes. They see exactly what they can get away with and how far they can push being in control and restricting rights.

So let’s address some of those bootlicking arguments for this level of obedience:

Stop The Spread of The Virus

That’s a cute argument. Odd how no one really argues for this, this hard, every year, for a virus that is statistically more dangerous. The general population goes and gets their flu shot and goes about their business. 56,000 people died in 2012-2013 flu season (1) and around 710,000 flu hospitalizations (not even counting those who were infected but did not go to the hospital or where hospitalized). So why wasn’t there a run on toilet paper and country wide shut down in 2013? Right now there are an estimated 27,000 cases with 347 deaths (2). That is no where near the 2013 flu season numbers.

So what stopped the stead of the virus in all the other years prior? Well, logic demands us to admit that it wasn’t the government’s commands to shut down all business and schools and order free citizens to stay home…

It’s For What’s Best For The Community

Yeah? I like to hear that argument from people who support abortion clinics in their community, impose a tax increase on targeted members of their community, or force certain members of their community to accept anything… They are also the same people who buy 500 rolls of toilet paper, because F everyone else. And usually, these aren’t the type of people to volunteer additional money, along with their taxes, to the local government either. Forcing the closing of local businesses is actually worse for the community; local employees go home without paychecks. Local business lose out in important income to pay their works and buy/produce more product. This has a lasting effect on the community. But because the government said so, it must be right…

Our Recommendations:

Keep Businesses open, BUT empower them to conduct MORE cleaning and sanitizing of their places of business. Request the aid of local non-profit and local volunteers to assist. Leave it up to that private business to decided a customer limit or change in business hours.

Empower and support Employers to send home employees with symptoms or have been around someone who has/had symptoms. Request compensation from state or federal agencies or even donations from the local community to financially support those who missed work so the business doesn’t face the full financial force.

Whatever government agency is closed down, divert those tax funds toward cleaning and sanitation supplies and conduct cleanings of government buildings and public grounds and create fund for local businesses to apply for financial aid.

Just a few ideas to assist in efforts to combat the virus while simultaneously keep the local economy going strong, and families bills paid and fed.

Lessons Learned

What we have learned from this is a number of things:

1. The modern American culture is weak. To toughen up, it will take very hard times or very hard parenting to changed the negative trajectory next generation. If the flu can throw the nation into chaos, just imagine what else could. And notice how easy it was. Some bad news, repeated over and over by the media, and a little bit of fear-mongering and hype. that’s it.

2. Need to be prepared to be self sufficient for at least 6 months. This means growing your own food, jarring your own food, freezing your own food, stocking up on can goods, non-perishables items with long life spans. Having a chicken coop, going fishing, and raising other animals for food such as rabbits and squirrel. This frees up money for the purchasing of other times. Becoming less dependent on the local energy supply and water supply by having generators, solar power items, water catching and filtration set up. Sustainable food, water, and energy supply will get you through the hard times that are too come.

3. Financial Independence. Dependence on the government is shameful. Having a savings account is extremely important and paying off your debt is very important as well. But, notice influence go through the roof because of what Trump did. Printing off trillions of dollars. That is going to drive the value of the dollar DOWN. So, because the dollar is just expensive monopoly money, it would be a good idea to actually invest in and store hard precious metals like gold and silver.

4. Network of Patriots. Communicate with a close group of local friends to share plans and resources during hard times.

You really can’t blame this virus for all the hardships to come, really. The seasonal flu infects more and kills more, annually. But it was the government that closed all the businesses and turned off the economy, not the flu. Then, it was the government that injected trillions of printed dollars into the banks, printed out of thin air. It was the government that infringed on all your basic human rights; and you were okay with it. Why? To make you think and feel like you “need” the government more than you ever have, and to give them a greater control over the private sector and you.

But, you can’t blame the virus. You elected these people. You obeyed without question…

Is America a Republic, or a Democracy, or Neither?

Leave a reply

What is a Republic?

A “Republic” is defined as: “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”

Is America a Republic?

Therefore, we can conclude that America is NOT or NO LONGER a Republic.

What is a Democracy?

A “Democracy” is defined as: “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

Is America a Democracy?

Therefore, we can conclude that America is barely a Democracy.

If America is NOT a Republic and hardly a Democracy, what is it?

What is an Oligarchy?

An Oligarchy is defined as: “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.”

Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Committee Chairman, and the CEOs of the fortune 50 companies… these are the few who have control of America. It’s that simple.

In fact, in light of all the recent events,

America is MORE of an authoritarian oligarchy than it is Democratic.

Voting for Republican OR Democrat is still voting for those who support one big government. This is the illusion that America is the example of Democracy… when it is hardly such.

But, you silly Americans, you keep paying your taxes and you keep voting harder for the few to spend your money and rule over you; obey peasants.

The Founding Fathers Did “Worse” And More “Violence”

Leave a reply

Continue reading →

Racial pandering is racism

Leave a reply

According to Democrats, if you are a minority, you must act and think a certain way, based on your skin color and culture. And if you don’t think or act the way they think you should, you’re wrong, because they, a different skin color and in their superiority, know better than you do.

So really, the party that made up the majority of the KKK, still hasn’t changed all that much. We can see this just by their actions and their own words.

Their chosen front runner and party leader, Joe Biden, exhibits this just about every time to opens his mouth. He explicitly stated that if YOU don’t support him, and you’re black, then, “you ain’t black.” How can he tell people who are black, their not, if they don’t support him? Simply because of his own perceived superiority.

He thinks blacks should act and think a certain way. And if they don’t, he discredits them, marginalizes them, even vilifies them.

How can he be FOR a racial group if, throughout his political career, he has supported and co-authored legislation that actually harms racial groups? For 40 plus years, data has shown the harmfulness of his own policies. He has had 40 plus years to address this, why didn’t he? He chooses his own career over their issues. Only when it benefits his party and his own career, he then talks about race issues and supports very minor reforms. Again, his care isn’t about the black community, but himself.

You have politicians like (D) Bill Clinton who championed the 1994 crime bill. You even have Hillary Clinton state “they all look alike” at a conference comparing Eric Holder with Corry Booker. The fact that people came out in defense of her claiming all kinds of things from framing some sort of ‘context’ of her racist joke is shameful. Even if it was a joke, it was racist.

Don’t believe it? Read https://potr1774.com/get-to-know-joe-biden/ and watch the videos of him your self.

Remember, it was the democrat party that supported Jim Crow laws. As blacks voted for more republicans and when blacks began to really start voting that they changed their approach. Then they pushed for mass incarceration (1994 crime bill) which directly harmed the black community. They got a couple black civil rights leaders on board and changed their image to look like they were for the black community. They pushed this idea and image that democrats were the party of minorities, even though their policies greatly harm those communities. Then, as they got more of the power back, they used that image to maintain power.

The real problems facing the black community is black on black crime and abortion. These two violence cause the most loss of life in the black community and do serious harm to families. What is the Democratic solution? Support aborting even more black babies, over-criminalize, mass incarcerate of more blacks, and force blacks to be more dependent on the system…

Then Why Are There Black Democrats?

The love of power. It’s as simple as that. You have the ‘ghetto pimps’ who just pander to the people of their community to maintain their level of power and prestige.

Some of the most heavily populated cities with the largest black population have continuously elected democrats for decades. But, for decades, their issues have not been reformed. Yet, they keep getting re-elected. Every election cycle they give speeches and promises of change, but no change ever amounts to any real individual independence and benefit for their community.

They USE the problems of their community for their own re-election and to maintain their power and position. They NEED these problems so they can use them to get elected. They use the problems as a tool to campaign against their political rivals. They paint their rivals as someone who will cause problems, yet, they, themselves, do not solve the problems they were elected to solve.

Changing names of streets and buildings do not really change the problem. They just hide the problem. Removing statues do not actually change any problems, they just hide the past and keep people from learning from the mistakes of the past. All the policies and laws that have harmed the black communities, are still in effect, under the watch of all those black politicians who get continuously elected.

How Do They Keep Getting Elected?

Pushing their “image” of being for minorities and using the ‘ghetto pimps’ to further their self proclaimed image, they get people to think how they want them to think. They TELL the community how to act and think with all kinds of promises and handouts. The problems in the community are never really solved. So the is a perpetual existence of disparities in these communities that are never really addressed directly. Instead, government problems are offered as a sort of bandaid to the problems.

Since Joe Biden is racist in his idea that through his superiority, tells black people how they should act and think; how can blacks vote for him? THAT is a huge question. It’s puzzling that so many blacks who are fighting for equality and fighting against injustice and racism, support a guy and a party that has racial prejudice ingrained in their party platform. They support a party that puts black people in a box. That limit their individuality to what the party thinks they should and should not support. It’s clear black Democrats like this “box” because first, they are immune to it because they have made it out of the box and now use their position of power to shape the box and maintain their own power. But, again, how can impoverish, low-income, lower socioeconomic class minorities, even moderate and middle-income minorities, support such racially prejudice policies and agree with the box they are placed in?

The pseudo feeling of empowerment is like a mental drug. When the government subsidy hits the bank account, it feels great. Everyone loves government stimulus checks. They don’t consider who, how, or where it came from. Organizations that thrive on government subsidies use only a percentage of the money for their actual cause. The voters don’t hear about the high standards to qualify for the small business grants. All they hear about is how much money is out there. They also don’t detail how some of these grants are only for certain groups and aren’t even available, equally, all small businesses of the same industry. Some grants are only for women. That means and entire group of small business owners can’t even qualify for them simply based on their sex. Others are minority specific, which is good, but the consequence to this is that non-minority small business owners, who employ minorities, can not qualify for them either. If they need them, but can’t get them, and go out of business, that means those minority employees are also out of a job. So, a male small business owner who employs a majority of minorities can not qualify for a bunch of grants; which risks the jobs of minorities still. How can people fight inequality, while simultaneously support inequality of grant distribution? Again, it comes back to that pseudo feeling of empowerment; when it actuality is systemic government dependence.

Modern Enslavement

Being financially dependent on government is modern civilized enslavement. This is the tool of democrats. To expand government programs with the image of “helping” those communities. But what that has done has just forced them to become dependent on these programs and to rely on government assistance. Once trapped in the cycle of government support, any effort to change these government subsidies is easily labeled as “anti-minority.” This is another tool of democrats. To vilify and frame government subsidy reforms as racist and harmful to the black communities; when, in fact, it is the very thing that has enslaved minorities. It almost secures votes.

Now, after decades and generations who have grown accustomed to government subsidies, it is viewed as ‘normal’ and ‘needed.’ Those who came out of this are indoctrinated with the idea that it was the government subsidies that helped them achieve personal success. They then in turn perpetuate the idea that government subsidies are a good thing for their community. And the generational cycle of government dependence continues; securing long term voting blocks for Democrats.

There still exists mass incarceration party due to mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the Democrat’s 1994 crime bill and subsequent amendments. Over-criminalization places greater hardships on people to be successful on their own. Mass government oversight and regulations make becoming financially independent and owning your own business even harder and more expensive. Massive costs of education caused by government subsidies to colleges leads to greater student loan debt and financial hardships for individuals. ALL of this almost forces people to fall back on the government for more help. Harder to find jobs with over-criminalization. Harder to start your own business. Regulations and taxes drive up the costs of daily goods. ALL of this forces people to struggle. All of this forces people to be government dependent. Democrats simply support economic slavery.

Then, they paint all of THEIR polices as some abstract ‘systemic racism’ of which THEY create, support, and avoid solving.

There is overwhelming evidences that shows the more government subsidizes something, the more expensive it becomes. This is a fact in the agriculture and education sectors. As government funds more of the industry, the more the costs of the industry rise. Then people are complaining that things are getting too expensive; so what do they do? They vote for more politicians who grow the government subsidies and are shocked when prices still go up even higher.

Meanwhile, these politicians send their kids to private schools, get them hired on a high paying jobs that they don’t even qualify for, have private chiefs, and have the best, highest quality health care; who aren’t even using the very subsidized things they advocate for. Yet, the people keep voting for these very politicians, year after year.

Republicans Aren’t Free From Criticisms Either

Republicans were started out of the Abolitionist (Abolishment of slavery) movement and their first leader was Abraham freak’n Lincoln. A guy that was way ahead of his time. Who fought supreme court decisions (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857) and fought to amend the Constitution (13th and 14th Amendment). Republicans fought for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that Democrats filibustered. They were the party that deregulated a lot of industries that allowed for greater economic growth of private businesses and small business. They were for smaller limited government and empowering the individual to be successful. They rallied voters rights and voter registration drives that the Democrats fought against. They ran against Jim Crow politicians in the south. WTF happened?

Well, as time went on, and as government subsidies became more culturally normal and acceptable, these new generations of Republicans accepted them as useful too. And now, as it is painted by government dependent groups that government subsidies are ‘helpful,’ they embraced them for the furtherance of their career or protect it too. It’s virtually political suicide now to support reducing public subsidies. If they do this, Democrats and government dependent communities jump all over them as ‘racist” and “anti-minority.” Even non-minority communities have grown to depend on them and support the government subsidies.

Black Non-Democrats

Yes, there are a lot of blacks who are NOT Democrat. And, according to Joe Biden, they aren’t black. Literally, that’s what he said from his own mouth (see the video for yourself above).

In the late 1800s you had leaders like Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass. The Democratic party did soften it’s stance against blacks and segregation which allowed for the inclusion of blacks in the Democratic party. But these Democrats were classical liberals, which, more reflects the Republican party now anyway. Just look at what party all the blacks were with after the Civil War up to the 1930s (https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Black-American-Representatives-and-Senators-by-Congress/). Once Jim Crow laws were really being enforced, suddenly, the only way to win was to join the Democrats. As Jim Crow laws were being resisted and dismantled, you start seeing blacks being elected as Republicans again. Hubert Humphrey (D), basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all. Voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 40% of Democrats still opposed it. Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the Democrat filibuster of this monumental Act. But by that time, the Democrats had started changing their image. It was the Republicans who fought the hardest for equality, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act; that’s 100 years of fighting for equal rights. Not the Democrats.

Now, the Democratic party is heavily leaning toward extreme liberalism which is collectivist in their view of minorities. In 1960, the NAACP President Benjamin Hooks was invited to address the Republican National Convention. President Reagan appoints Clarence Thomas as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who later become the first black Supreme Court Justice. President Reagan appoints Alan Keyes the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. Condoleezza Rice was appointed by Bush as Senior Director of the National Security Council for Soviet and East European Affairs. And there are hundreds of predominate blacks who are not Democrats (but still only see minorities as a defined group within a box). Some, aren’t affiliated with the Republican party either. Odd how it’s racist to assume all black people play basketball but not racist to assume all blacks are Democrat… And it’s not Republican VS Democrat. There are other political parties, such as the Libertarian Party. Ironically, The Libertarian Party now most closely resembles the old Republican Party of the late 1800s.

Tim Scott (SC, Senator)
Allen West (LTC, FL Senator)
Herman Cain, who ran for president as a Republican
Dr. Ben Carson, who ran for president as a Republican
Dr. Thomas Sowell (Economist)
Shelby Steele
Armstrong Williams
Dr. Walter E. Williams (Professor of Economics, George Mason University; syndicated columnist)
Naomi Churchill Earp
Artur Genestre Davis (Ex-Democrat)
Mia Love (UT, Congress)
Will Hurd (TX, Congress)
Alveda King (Member of the Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission)
Richard Wright
Larry Elder (talk radio host; best-selling author)
Brian Higgins (radio host, XM Satelite Radio – Boston, MA)
Star Parker (author; founder, Coalition on Urban Affairs)
Gerald Reynolds (Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)
Michael Steele (Republican National Committee Chairman)
Dr. James Robinson (freelance writer; former Professor of Political Science)
Judge Janice Rogers Brown (U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, DC Circuit)
Larry Sharpe
Rigoberto Stewart (Institute for Liberty and Analysis of Policy in Government)
Maj Toure (Activist, Founder of Black Guns Matter)
Dr. Anne Wortham (author; Professor of Sociology, Illinois State University)
Bruce LeVell
Michael Barnett ( Diversity coalition and chairman of the Republican Executive Committee in Palm Beach County, Florida)
Dr. Darrell Scott
Candace Owens
Henry Childs II (Attorney and president of the Texas Federation of African-American Republicans)
Don King (Former promoter of boxing champions from Muhammad Ali to Mike Tyson)

That’s just to name a few.

And if you don’t know any of these people, or maybe just heard of a few, you are limiting your mind and opinions. You may be holding yourself in the box of minorities that the democrats have told you to be in.

But this proves that blacks don’t have to conform to the Democrat imposed definition of what it is to be black. They are free to think and act how they personally choose to. They can be Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or form their own party. But dismantling the generational indoctrination of Democrats deciding what is best for blacks will take generations as well, and it will take even longer since blacks are so conditioned to continually only vote Democrat.

Burning Target and Autozone, and burning tyrants are not the Same Thing.

Leave a reply

We need to be absolutely clear about something. Looting, pillaging, and burning private companies and innocent small businesses in the community is not the same thing as damaging and burning tyrant oppressive establishments. But, burning tyrants should not be the first response to tyranny either. Continue reading →

Get To Know Joe Biden

Leave a reply

Think you know this guy? Well, let’s dig into who he is, what he has said, and what he has done for America. Continue reading →

The Problem is The Police

Leave a reply

This is going to be a tough pill to swallow for the diehard “Thin Blue Line” crowd. But, it either exposes their blind sheep-like mentality or their willingness to understand a serious issue going on nation wide. What is the problem? The Police, nation wide, are so willing to violate the rights of all Americans. 4 problems with the majority of police, and The People’s solution: Continue reading →

The Constitutionality and Ethical Issues of ‘Stay-at-Home’ Orders

Leave a reply

The Liberty Test

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court uses logical tests to determine if something meets a certain standard. We The People, should do the same. This test, anyone can apply to any sort of policy, order, or legislation tests it’s support or opposition to freedom, and expands or contracts freedoms, for all or some people. Continue reading →

Dear #StayHome People,

I am speaking to all of you who proclaim that you are staying at home, during the Coronavirus, because you care about other people. Sounds very noble of you. So strong, so brave. Continue reading →

2nd Amendment Case Law

Leave a reply

The Chronological case law of the 2nd Amendment. Where the courts got it wrong, and took away freedom, and where they got it right, and empowered a free people; since 1857 all the way to the present and pending cases today. Continue reading →

Stay At Home, Follow Orders, Obey, Comply, For The Common Good

Leave a reply

What is a Republic?

Is America a Republic?

What is a Democracy?

Is America a Democracy?

If America is NOT a Republic and hardly a Democracy, what is it?

What is an Oligarchy?

America is MORE of an authoritarian oligarchy than it is Democratic.

Share This mf'r!

Wearing a Mask

Why Wear A Mask If You Touch Things?

Who Should Wear The Mask?

What Do Studies Say?

So are some masks better than others at reducing the risk, even though there is still a risk with all masks?

The Real Problem

Wash your damn hands.

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

The Supreme Court Justices

Is targeting a certain group and forcing them to do something against their will and in violation of their rights; moral and ethical?

Were Japanese Internment Camps unethical and immoral?

Share This mf'r!

The reality of the situation

“bUt yOuR noT a ViruOloGisT!”

Did you give up your rights to fight Ischaemic heart disease and stroke? Why not? It’s worse than COVID-19!

“bUt DonT YoU cAre AbOuT peOPle?

The Indoctrinated Sheeple Say The Darnedest Things:

I care so much about people, that I am willing to fight and die for their freedom and liberty from oppression, for their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Even if they don’t. Even if you don’t.

EVERY SINGLE RIGHT, IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, HAS BEEN VIOLATED!

Yes, Freedom and Liberty is more important than the Coronavirus.

Share This mf'r!

Are the numbers from China usable?

What about The World Health Organization? Are they reliable?

So, what numbers can we trust? Can we even trust the numbers being calculated by America?

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Stop The Spread of The Virus

It’s For What’s Best For The Community

Our Recommendations:

Lessons Learned

Share This mf'r!

What is a Republic?

Is America a Republic?

What is a Democracy?

Is America a Democracy?

If America is NOT a Republic and hardly a Democracy, what is it?

What is an Oligarchy?

America is MORE of an authoritarian oligarchy than it is Democratic.

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Then Why Are There Black Democrats?

How Do They Keep Getting Elected?

Modern Enslavement

Republicans Aren’t Free From Criticisms Either

Black Non-Democrats

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!

Share This mf'r!