By The Time You're Tested

So in keeping with "keeping it real" about COVID-19, I have hypothesized that the virus is far more widespread than we think because a lot of people probably got it and toughed it out. Now a paper subject to review provides some evidence of this: I'm going to screencap the text because of the recent discovery of papers and reports being changed after the fact with no notice on the replacement pages.

People who contract the novel coronavirus emit high amounts of virus very early on in their infection, according to a new study from Germany that helps to explain the rapid and efficient way in which the virus has spread around the world.

Importantly:

The researchers found very high levels of virus emitted from the throat of patients from the earliest point in their illness —when people are generally still going about their daily routines. Viral shedding dropped after day 5 in all but two of the patients, who had more serious illness. The two, who developed early signs of pneumonia, continued to shed high levels of virus from the throat until about day 10 or 11.

Osterholm said the data in the paper confirm what the spread of the disease has been signaling — “early and potentially highly efficient transmission of the virus occurs before clinical symptoms or in conjunction with the very first mild symptoms.”

I'm not clear as to what "earliest point" is. Is that a cough that makes you go "hmmmm" but not enough to get you alarmed? Is it a runny nose but no other symptoms? Is it a scratchy throat but nothing else? These are symptoms that many people will go to work (and whatever) while having. If that is the case, before they even get to a point of getting tested for anything they would be highly contagious. It would also mean that if we're depending on "have symptoms, let me get tested" as a means of tracking cases, that's not going to "work". By "work" I mean contain the spread. I'm already on record as saying that the data shows that "infection", "dead" and "hospitalization" should not be automatically linked unless talking about the elderly.

Corona Virus Reports Being Manipulated?

Yesterday I read a Washington Post article about the cases in China in which I saw the following quote:

The WHO report and the Chinese study found that those who died were older and had preexisting conditions such as cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic respiratory diseases and cancer."

This sentence no longer appears in the linked text. Why was it removed?

Not only that but the original headline was "ICY Patients with corona virus and pneumonia treated in Wuhan China-The Washington Post." It now reads: "How doctors treat the sickest coronavirus patients". See below:

This is purposeful removal of information. Why? This is unacceptable.

Interestibng Corona "Recovery" Cases

So amid the information about infections, I've been most interested in cases in populations least at risk for death and/or serious symptoms. There was an earlier account of a man in China who had gotten re-infected but I found no details on that case. Now there is one out of Hong Kong. While many reports and commentary obfuscate the important details the details, The Ghost doesn't deal in sensationalism. Here's a key point about that woman:

Authorities earlier said a 31-year-old evacuee from the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship was first infected on February 18 while aboard, but later appeared to recover in a hospital in Japan

She tested negative on March 4 and 6 in the country, before returning to Hong Kong on All Nippon Airways flight NH811 on March 7.

On Monday, she was found to be still infected at Queen Mary Hospital in Pok Fu Lam.

At a regular press conference, Dr Chuang Shuk-kwan, head of the communicable diseases branch under the Centre for Health Protection, said the woman had a chronic illness with a weak immune system, and could have been carrying the virus for a prolonged period.

So two important things stand out to me about this case:

1) Generally, the people most in danger are those who are already sick and the very elderly. Not that you want to get it, but most people who get it will recover. We'll get back to that.

2) The idea that she was a carrier for quite some time. I have had a long standing (relatively speaking) idea that the virus has been in circulation in the US, particularly major coastal cities with large international populations and points of entry. I believe that it's been in the US since at least December. This based on other readings out of China. I believe a large number of people have been infected, got sick, toughed it out and got better. In their incubation periods they infected other people and, if the above report is to believed, infected people even after they thought they got better.

The other thing is that I have thought that this virus, if it has been in circulation AND is as infectious as it seems to be, that it may be like HPV. Human Papiloma Virus is carried by at least half the population in the US. Most people are asymptomatic but do pass it on. A few people get cancers like cervical cancer and oral cancer relatively late in life due to this virus. I saw someone comment that "experts" say that 70 million people in Italy may get infected. That would be half the population and in line with my hypothesis. We shall see. If it IS like HPV in that people walk around with it without any impact on their health then that could be a good thing and will make claims on "x number infected" far less "scary".

Now going back to my first point I present a chart from the bottom of the linked article as of this writing:

55% of those infected have recovered. 3% of the infected have died. So if you get infected you have a 97% chance of NOT dying. Some 42% of the odds being "in recovery" or "in treatment". Those are very good odds. Also since a patient cannot be in recovery or treatment indefinitely one of two things has to happen. Either the recovered percentage goes up or the deaths go up

What does that mean for the general US population? Well there are approximately 330million people so at a 3% mortality rate you have a chance of 9 million dead. That's a lot of people indeed. Normal US deaths are 2,813,503 so you're talking ~4x more registered deaths than normal if the math holds up. Of course that number won't be 4x because that 2.8 million includes deaths from all causes.

Philosophy Friday

You can have your cake. You can eat your cake. You can eat your cake while you have your cake. Eventually you'll run out of cake to eat while eating your cake, and then there is no cake and no eating.

Not A Serious Country

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that:

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday in Kansas v. Garcia that federal immigration law does not preempt a state prosecution for identity theft.

I had to pause when reading that because:

First: Why would a federal law prevent the prosecution of the crime of identity theft?

Second: Why is this a split decision?

Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara were all found to have used someone else’s social security number to qualify employment and/or housing. The state of Kansas utilized the I-9 form to charge the three with the state crime of identity theft.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) requires that employers verify that new employees are not unauthorized aliens. This process is accomplished through the completion of the federal work-authorization form (I-9). The forms require the employee to provide certain information, such as the employee’s email address, telephone number, birth date and social security number.

All three respondents in these cases argued that IRCA preempted their prosecutions. The argument was based on 8 USC §1324a(b)(5), which states that “I–9 forms and ‘any information contained in or appended to such form[s] may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of’ the INA or other listed federal statutes.”

So what does that section say?

(5) Limitation on use of attestation form A form designated or established by the Attorney General under this subsection and any information contained in or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of this chapter and sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of title 18.

And what do the sections in title 18 say?

Head of section 1001:Part I. CRIMES Chapter 47. FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

Head of section 1028:18 U.S. Code § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;
(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;
(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;
(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or
(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification;

Head of Section 1546:18 U.S. Code § 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents

(a) Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or

Head of section 1621: 18 U.S. Code § 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever— (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or...

So Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara are essentially admitting to the crime, under which they have run afoul of the above listed codes and their argument is that the state didn't have the right to prosecute them? Hmmm...OK then, why weren't they charged by the feds as soon as the fraud was discovered? If they want to play that game, INS should have arrested them on the spot.

That said let's look at the dissent in the decision:

Our precedent demonstrates that IRCA impliedly preempts state laws that trench on Congress’ detailed and delicate design. In Arizona, we invalidated a state law that made it a crime for an unauthorized alien to work. 567 U. S., at 403. In reaching that conclusion, we acknowledged that the Act’s employer-related sections contain an express preemption provision, while the employee-related provi- sions do not. Id., at 406. Even so, the Act’s employee- related provisions retained, through implication, preemp- tive force. Id., at 406–407.

Congress, we explained, “made a deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who” merely “seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment.” Id., at 405. The Act puts combating the employment of unauthorized aliens at the forefront of federal immigration policy. Id., at 404. But it also reflects “a considered judgment” not to pursue that goal at all costs. Id., at 405. “Unauthorized workers trying to support their families” usually “pose less danger than al- ien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.” Id., at 396. And they may have “children born in the United States, long ties to the community,” or other attributes that could counsel in favor of prosecutorial restraint. Ibid. We ultimately held in Arizona that the States thus may not make criminal what Congress did not, for any such state law “would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens.” Id., at 406. Given that “obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose,” we concluded that the state law at issue conflicted with the federal Act and was therefore preempted. Id., at 406–407. [my underlines]

Note that these judges admit that the congress passed laws to purposely keep states from enforcing employment AND immigration law because of the threat those laws imposed on those in the country illegally. These same people lecture us about the "rule of law" and "nobody above the law" who then create "sanctuary states" where they can pre-empt federal enforcement of immigration and employment law at will.

A serious country would not only allow the federal government (or national government) to enforce it's immigration and employment laws, it would not prevent it's states, counties, districts, boroughs or whatever from doing the same. And the lawmakers would definitely not purposely try to "not impose criminal penalties" on those who have trespassed AND committed ID theft which no citizen would be able to get away with.

Addressing Bernie Sanders' Lie About Billionaires

One of Bernie Sanders attack lines is that somehow it is the fault of greedy billionaires that there are homeless people in America. A lot of people walk around with this "America is so rich so there shouldn't be homeless" idea. This idea is an outgrowth of the idea that in order for someone to be/get rich they must have appropriated the wealth of someone else OR prevented a class of people from becoming wealthy (or at least self-sufficient). This may have been the case during the rise of early industrialists, some of whom did some very shady (and downright criminal) things to workers in the process of making their money. However; this really isn't the case anymore; particularly in the US. Much of the wealth generated today is in the form of appreciating assets. Those assets are largely but not exclusively in the financial sector. In other words, money making money. Other forms are you, the reader, using "free" platforms in exchange for being monetized by the companies providing you with these "free" services. Remember, when it comes to the internet either you pay for the product or you ARE the product.

Generally the extremely wealthy got so by offering some good or service that a large number of people found useful and were willing to pay for. Generally. They didn't make their money by making people homeless. Generally. We'll get back to this. It's important to understand what the homeless look like before getting further into the topic.

In a 2008 survey performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 25 cities were asked for the three largest causes of homelessness in their communities. Mental illness was the third largest cause of homelessness for single adults (mentioned by 48% of cities). For homeless families, mental illness was mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top 3 causes of homelessness... In addition, half of the mentally ill homeless population in the United States also suffers from substance abuse and dependence (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Minorities, especially African Americans, are over-represented in this group. Some mentally ill people self-medicate using street drugs, which can lead not only to addictions, but also to disease transmission from injection drug use. This combination of mental illness, substance abuse, and poor physical health makes it very difficult for people to obtain employment and residential stability.

Mental illness being the third largest cause. I recall watching a Youtube channel where various homeless people were interviewed. A large number of the people had fell into addiction that cost them their jobs and families. This is not the fault of "billionaires". It is why as a rule I don't give money to homeless. I give food or clothes.

Another point on addiction and homelessness:

The 100,000 Homes Campaign, a movement of communities working to find permanent homes for 100,000 homeless individuals, conducted a survey of more than 30,100 homeless people across the country. Close to 60 percent of participants had a substance abuse problem. Nearly 14 percent engaged in drugs intravenously, and roughly 20 percent had a drug problem without knowing or admitting it.

Alcohol is more common among older generations, whereas drug abuse is more prevalent with young adults. Polydrug use — using two or more drugs in combination — has become more popular among all adults.

So we can clearly see that a rather large percentage of the homeless are homeless for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with "billionaires". It is either due to their own behavior (substance abuse) or mental illness they developed or were born with.

The next class of people who are homeless are those done in by circumstances beyond their control. For example due to the explosive growth of IT businesses in California, housing costs have skyrocketed and the population of working homeless has ballooned. We're talking teachers and other professionals who in any other area of the country would probably not be homeless. Who drove up the housing prices? Not [usually] billionaires but the millionaires that own the property.

Next we have the unexpected medical event. I think this is where Sanders' argument is and will be most potent. I read that a person went to get tested for COVID-19 and received a 3k bill. Should have never happened. The extremely high costs of medical care in the US has to be addressed. Simply throwing more taxpayer money at it is not going to help. I completely understand that it takes a large sum of money to discover new treatments. I understand that medical professionals are often highly paid and that the equipment in use is specialized and "expensive" but these kinds of bills simply shouldn't be possible. These, IMO abusive billing practices are going to get Socialism in the door a lot faster than people think because all of us are going to need medical care in our lifetimes.

One of the possible reasons I see for these inflated bills is the health insurance industry. Similar to how it may be the case that guaranteed government student loads are inflating college costs, I think that these hospitals and other entities, knowing that some insurance company is going to pay for the service, regardless of whether the patient can actually pay, drives up costs. What incentives are there to get these bills down to a reasonable amount is there, when the vast majority of patients pay a $50 "fee" and the $3000 comes from AETNA? Who in turn has been guaranteed by the government to have employees pay in x-amount of their wages to their company?

How many patients with a 104 degree temp is going to be all: "Well doc, can I get an estimate? Can I get competing quotes from nearby hospitals? Naw, I don't think I want to pay for this pill right here, you just take the blood sample and I'll go get my own Advil."

So a lot of Bernie supporters are going to need to be real about the causes of homelessness. It's not a simple billionaires are to blame.

Some COVID-19 Thoughts

So over the weekend I saw reports of the increasing numbers of cases in Italy South Korea and the US coasts. Not entirely surprised at the locations of the first cases in the US. They are all on US coasts (Except the IL. case) where there are busy international arrival airports and high immigrant populations. With a virus that has a relatively long incubation period, there could be many undiagnosed cases, particularly among younger and healthier populations that are going to get a lot of people infected. But thats' not really what's on my mind this AM. The thing I keep seeing is about the lack of hospital beds. I think that we may be thinking to 20th century.

If most cases are relatively mild (meaning ER case is unnecessary) then the needs for beds drops. There are a lot of people who go to ERs in a panic for what are not really ER situations. Corona may lead to a lot more of that. I believe that one thing that could be done here is to leverage "visiting nurse" businesses. They could be used for both initial diagnosis as well as regular check ins without taking up hospital resources. For all I know this is already in action so if I'm late on this forgive me.

I think this could even be used for more serious cases as well. Since there is no "cure" and all that a hospital is going to do, as far as I know, is proscribe fever reducers, fluids and sleep, these things can be done a person's residence. The main thing a hospital has is the eye of a health care professional. Which brings me to my next suggestion: Leverage technology.

A great portion of the population has smart phones that are capable of real time video conferencing. Therefore it is possible for a nurse or other qualified person to "check in" on a patient who is very remote. Indeed such things are done in rural Africa all the time with what I understand is great effect. Those in isolation in their residences should be checked in on remotely via these apps from a central location which may be a hospital but not necessarily so. Also we have smart watches now that can read heart rates and notify emergency contacts if there are heart issues and/or falls. I think that government agencies should consider batch purchases of these devices for those who do not have these devices and who are considered higher risk. In this way when these patients are between check-ins, we can know that they are not dead or have had a fall that may be related to them moving around while sick. If these monitors do go off, then the appropriate ambulatory services can be activated.

The other thing is food. One thing we don't want is for sick people to go to the stores and infect other people. Hence organizations who do food deliveries such as meals on wheels should be considered by the relevant authorities to do food deliveries to isolated persons. For those able to pay for such services, they should do so, particularly since we are in a cash optional society now.

Other than that, wash yo' hands and keep them away from your face. And for casino frequenters, clean those buttons and tables before you play. And if you're sick, please, please, please lose your money another day when you're not sick.

What's Behind The Trump Pardon Spree?

So Trump went on a pardon spree. For a while I couldn't figure out why. I was particularly baffled by Blagojevich's pardon. After all he's a Democrat...who's not black. Yes, there's the whole Apprentice thing but I think it goes deeper than that. People in the press are saying that Trump is pardoning people with connections to him. I'm actually sure that's a part of it but I think it to be a small part of it. I think we can find the reasoning in commentary that Trump has made recently regarding the Roger Stone. So here's Trump talking about Stone

So you see Trump is highly upset about the way the "justice department" has been handling cases. To underscore this point, look at this Washington Examiner piece:

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred Comey for possible criminal prosecution after an investigation into the former FBI chief's handling of his memos, after which the agency quickly determined there was little on which to build a case.

Upon hearing the news, Trump spiraled into frequent tirades, raising his voice and swearing in the Oval Office, according to the Washington Post. "Can you [expletive] believe they didn’t charge him?” Trump said the night of the decision...

Comey has become a vocal Trump critic since being fired in May 2017, appears to be the subject of another leak investigation into a dubious Russian intelligence document that factored into how he handled the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server.

Trump also has complained about FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months and believes it was unacceptable that Comey's former deputy, Andrew McCabe, has not been charged with a crime.

So I believe what Trump is doing is a "two can play this game" thing. The way I see it, Trump is showing that if the people in the "Justice Department" want to go easy on their friends and colleagues while going on hard on people they don't care for or who are not in their circle, then He's going to use his pardon power to reverse their decisions. I'm sure Bill Barr is not happy about it as it does, in fact, make the department look bad. However; this is a problem made by the department itself. Personally, I don't see how anyone involved with presenting false information to the FISA court has not been arrested and charged with perjury at a bare minimum. And I'm not talking about that one guy who falsified that one report. The reason it hasn't happened is because it goes all the way up the chain. And I mean ALL THE WAY UP. Like Dan Bogino says:

They all know each other.

Interview With A Grooming Gang Survivor

While the media give you Mr and Mrs Markle, here's an interview of one of the thousands of British nationals raped by gangs of foreign nationals while the police and social services agents did nothing.

Understand that the Left in the US would gladly bring this to the US.

White Ex-Democrat

Tim Pool talks with Jack Murphy about how he stopped being a Democrat. If you "can't understand" why there are [many] people who support Trump then you need to understand this interview.

Of particular interest to me was the discussion of signs in store windows in Berkley and the store owner (small business) saying that the anti-Trump signs were in the window to prevent the glass from being smashed by Antifa types (who are supported by Democrats and the media, I repeat myself). That's some mafia type stuff right there.

About The Electoral College

For a long time, including at the beginning of this blog, I have been very down on the EC. It was, of course, for selfish reasons. I thought, as most people now clamoring for it to be abolished that the popular vote should decide things. I didn't consider that the population of the US was dense in some places and sparse in others. Really, I didn't. Because of this, I really didn't understand why the system had been set up the way it had been. Today's people saying that there should be a popular vote don't really care about those areas of the country that would essentially be shut out of presidential voting. For all the talk of voter disenfranchisement, the popular vote would essentially discard of all votes not in states with populous cities. And so I ask the question: What reason would those states (and indeed the people in them) have for remaining in the United States? Anyway, for those reading this over the extended weekend, here's a video on the subject:

I do want to address one thing mentioned in the video. Tara Ross says that the founders didn't foresee an uneducated (or uninformed) public and this is a part of the problem. I disagree. As we know, elections, and therefore real political power was meant to be in the hands of land owning [white] freemen. The very class of people likely to be "educated" and have "something to lose" by bad decisions made by government. Indeed it is the expansion of "voting rights" that has caused a lot of changes. There are a number of electoral maps out there that show how elections would likely turn out based on one particular group voting (white males, White females, blacks, etc). By the maps I saw, Trump sweeps the entire country if the only people able to vote were those allowed in the beginning of the republic. So the question can be made whether it is really about 'education" or the different interests of various groups currently inhabiting the US.

Bloomberg: Right About The Stats. Wrong About The Solution

So folks are finding out that Bloomberg has said some true things about crime, particularly violent crime in NYC. They are SHOCKED. SHOCKED I tell you that Bloomberg,who got to see the data the head of the city of NY, stated that "minorities" were the "usual suspects" as well as victims of violence with guns ( I hate the term "gun violence" since guns are inanimate objects). Below is a clip from ABL where he, unfortunately defends the practice of Stop and Frisk:

Now I'm not going to dispute Bloomberg's commentary on the stats. I've written on the subject and any honest person who has seen the stats knows the deal. So this leads me to my major problem with Bloomberg: He's a tyrant.

Bloomberg is one of those white men who has a God complex. He thinks it's his job to "take care" of people whether they like it or not. He's the typical paternalistic liberal with a huge bank account. So for Mike, the ends justifies the means. If you have rights that get in the way of "getting it done", then to hell with your rights.

There is absolutely no doubt that Stop and Frisk is and was effective. I am not disputing that. The problem is that Stop And Frisk grossly violated the 4th Amendment rights of the citizens of NYC. This is what ABL apparently doesn't get or doesn't particularly care about. Simply being in a "high crime area" is not grounds for a warrant-less search. Yes, the police used the bullshit of "furtive movements" to justify these stops on paper, but what exactly is a furtive movement? Is going for your phone a "furtive movement"? Ask Diallo about that one.

Being black in a black high crime area doesn't rise to reasonable suspicion either. The fact of the matter is that even though black crime rates are many multiples of white crime rates, the vast majority of black people are law abiding. And given the high use of public transport in NYC and it's infamous nightlife, being out and about in the wee hours of the morning is also not a good reason to suspect someone of criminal intent.

Bloomberg knew this would come out hence his "I'm sorry" media blitz right before he announced his run.

We see you.

The other reason I am bothered by ABLs acceptance of Stop and Frisk is that by accepting it, he undermines his own support of the 2nd Amendment. After all, if your 4th Amendment rights are negotiable based on public safety then it is reasonable to say that your 2nd Amendment rights are as well. I accept neither argument. And this is also why Bloomberg is dangerous. He has no care for the 4th and he has no qualms about nuking the 2nd. See Virginia for what comes soon after a Bloomberg inauguration.

A man who is convinced of his own righteousness and that of his causes, who would steamroll any group standing in the way of his vision is a dangerous person. Back in the day when climate scientists were so convinced that we were all going to freeze to death that they seriously considered melting the ice caps, Nixon (I believe) told them to take a hike. A man like Bloomberg might likely do something that stupid 'cause he believes in what is currently passing as climate science.

Listen To Mr. Jones

I have my differences with Mr. Jones but in his latest at CNN, he says some things that I've been saying for years now:

At the same time, warning the Democrats. What he was saying to African-Americans can be effective. You may not like it but he mentioned HBCUs, black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under, he threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget. He talked about that. He talked about criminal justice reform. He talked about opportunity zones...

The thing about it is, and we've got to wake up, folks, there's a whole bubble thing that goes on, he said s-hole nations, therefore all black people are going to hate him forever. That ain't necessarily so. I think what you're going to see him do, you may not like my rhetoric, but look at my results and my record to black people, if he narrow casts that, it's going to be effective. Which means, as we move through this primary process, we've got to pay a lot more attention both to what's going on with the Latino vote. Are we going to get a benefit in terms of having them respond and with the black vote. It it going to be a split off, especially for black male voters? We've got to be clinical about this stuff. We get so emotional about it. That was a warning to us. That was a warning shot across the bow to us Democrats that he's going after enough black votes to cause us problems. It's not just suburban votes, he's going after black votes.

Mind you, I'm not positive on so called "criminal justice reform" because I see no such thing as "mass incarceration". If you do the crime and get caught, you go to jail. The way to lower incarceration rates is to lower crime rates. Bing, bang, done. As NYC is learning all over again, you take away disincentives to criminal activity, you get more of it.

That said, I mentioned years ago that the so called MAGA philosophy would pay dividends for black people, particularly those involved in manual labour:

In May 2017, the Trump administration sent letters to about 800 employees, saying they weren’t authorized to work in the United States, records examined by the Chicago Sun-Times show.

Those Hispanic employees didn’t return to work, leaving the bakery desperate to fill their jobs. So the company turned to another placement agency, Metro Staff Inc., and it provided Cloverhill with workers screened through the government’s “E-Verification” program. Most of those new employees are African American.

So Trump, who got probably less than 10% of the Black vote, if that, put money in black folks pockets, by being aggressive against those persons who are illegally present in the US, who were filling jobs that would have gone to black workers. Yet and still you have black democrats who are for open borders which has a direct negative impact on black blue collar workers.

Now what right thinking blue collar black worker, is going to look at the job he got via Trump's policies and look at the extra money in his account due to tax law changes, opposed by Democrats across the board, and say:

"Nah, I'd rather be laid off for illegal foreign nationals and give more money to the federal government."

It's like a Jamaican joke I heard years ago about a wife who comes home to find a strange woman in her bedroom. She confronts her husband about the woman he is obviously cheating with. He explains how x, y and z thing the wife enjoys having and stuff came from the "relationship" with the slumbering woman. The wife then says to go get a blanket to make sure she didn't catch a cold while sleeping.

Similarly, I'm saying that even if you think the president is a racist pig, use the racist pig to your benefit.

Of course Jones had to do silly talk as well:

But he's doing something else. And it has to do with how he's going to manage race in this thing and there seems to be a tradeoff between the Latinos and the African-Americans, that's what you see. he went hard on the sanctuary city stuff. That is very, very disturbing. It turns out sanctuary cities are safer than non-sanctuary cities. The Cato Institute, which is libertarian, have come out and said immigrants are committing less crime. So, for some reason he thinks that doubling down on the anti-immigrant piece is a big part of this thing.

Say it with me: illegal alien. It's anti-illegal alien. And the only "sanctuary cities" that are safer than "non-sanctuary cities" are those that are VERY white. Unfortunately the more non-White and non-Asian people are in a city, the higher the violent crime rates.

Also from Jones:

The thing about it is, and we've got to wake up, folks, there's a whole bubble thing that goes on, he said s-hole nations, therefore all black people are going to hate him forever. That ain't necessarily so.

Black folks, that is, descendants of slavery who live in the American bubble, either don't know about the black world, or specifically lie about it in order to guilt trip white people. But those in the know, know that shit hole places exist:

People poo in the bags at night, and they tie it and throw it and throw it away," Abdallah tells Al Jazeera.

The flying toilets are a symptom of Kibera's lack of a proper sewage system.

Hardly any in this impoverished corner of Nairobi has the luxury of a toilet inside their home. Some have an outdoor toilet, shared between multiple dwellings, but these are simple pit latrines that need to be emptied - usually into the open sewers outside.

And

Plastic bags, knotted and sagging, soar across the slum late at night.

They bounce off tin roofs, splatter against mud walls patched with tin cans and tumble down the steep hillside, where they sprout every few feet like plastic weeds. In the morning, they are trampled into the ground.

After 33 years in this shantytown known as Deep Sea, Cecilia Wahu barely notices the bags anymore. They are called "flying toilets," and because no one here has a bathroom, everyone has thrown a few...

Many black folks were ashamed cause of what Trump said. At the same time, many knew it to be absolutely true. And we *should* be shamed for having such slums in existence in our homeland.

So yeah, Jones is awake to the fact that thinking black people, particularly black men, who have benefited the most from the policies enacted by Trump are not going to be swayed as much by the 'he's racist" argument. Rather they are going to take a cue from that song and ask Democrats: What have you done for me lately? And right now, the Democrats have no answer whatsoever for any straight black male who is unashamed of being so and not trying to be a leech on society.

None.

Pie R Squared

So CBS (among others I presume) is running around showing people pies in an attempt to show them how it's unfair that the rich pay so little in taxes and how going after their wealth is the only way to do things for "the rest of us:. It's standard "scarcity mentality" that plagues so many of the Left. The way they see it, and I did once, the pie is of finite proportions and therefore the only way people at the top get more is by taking from the rest. of course, if you look at the economy as food, which, once consumed is all gone, it seems logical. So here's a pie lesson for those who don't get it.

Here's a pie:

Let's call it "small pie". For demonstration purposes, we'll assume "the rich" have half the pie. The "middle class" has 40 percent of the pie and the poor 10%. These numbers are not accurate and being used for demonstration purposes. So the pie is the total wealth. How do we calculate the total wealth? Well the total wealth is the area of the pie. The math for that is pi* r*r (pi times the radius squared). For simplicities sake, lets say that the radius is 1. It makes the math easy to follow. so:

3.14 *(1 * 1) = 3.14.

Everyone follow? Let's assume that 3.14 is $3.14 trillion. It's not in real life, but again, this is to simplify the math. So "The rich" own half of that so that's:

3.14 / 2

$1.57 trillion.

Doing the rest of the pie we have $1.25 trillion for the middle class and $314 billion for the poor. Add that all up and we get a shade under 3.14. Remember pi is a long number so...

So what happens if we grow the pie? Which you don't hear a single socialist running for office recommending?

So here is a bigger pie which I'll call "large pie":

Let's assume that the radius is exactly 2X the small pie. And no, economies do not grow 2X just like that. Again we're keeping it simple for the math. So let's go back to our maths. By growing the pie to 2R we find the total wealth is; 3.14 *(2*2)= 12.56

Huge increase in overall wealth eh?

Now let's assume that the slices "owned" by each respective group stay the same (it doesn't but that's another discussion). How much does each group have?

Rich: 12.56/2= $6.28 trillion. Nice jump. Yuge even.

Middle class: 12.56*.4 -= $5.024 trillion. An almost 5 fold increase in wealth.

Poor= 12.56*.1= $1.2 trillion. Well damn. The rich get richer and the poor....get richer. Well I'll be.

So simple math tells us that rather than what the Sander's, Warrens, Cortez's and media elites of the world tell us, it is possible to increase the wealth of the poor without taking from the rich or middle class.

Who knew?

Imagine Being This Brainwashed By The Media

Imagine being/supporting Democrats and having this attitude when you have open socialists and communists in your party with seats in various levels of government and education.

A Time Lesson From Kobe

There are only two days you cannot control: The day you are born and the day you die. Everything in between is the result of your choices -Odu Ifa (Paraphrased). I'm not gonna lie and say thet Kobe was a huge influence on my life and I'm shook up and all of that. He wasn't. That doesn't mean that his untimely death does not have an impact. When people who are young pass away it always gets my attention. Usually, these deaths are either due to violence or avoidable health issues. That Bryant had to go in such a tragic way reminded me of a mental change I had about 2 years ago. And it started with this video:

Same video, different time:

The part that got me: "no you don't have 8 years with them, you have 16 times with them." This made me look at my life and relationships a lot differently. I'm at a point in my life that, based on statistics, I have more life behind me than ahead of me. Time seems to go faster simply because I have so much time in the rearview. So now most mornings, I wake up before the alarm goes off. If I am awakened by the alarm, I no longer hit the snooze. I don't go over to the sofa and sleep another 10 minutes. If I don't have a run scheduled, I walk at 7AM for an hour. A lot of time if I'm sitting doing nothing, I'll ask myself, is this really what you want to do with your time? Is this the best you can do with your time? Must you watch that re-run?

I hope that prior to Kobe's tragic death, he was taking advantage of his time. Most don't come to the time realization in their early 40s but many do. And this is a very large lesson I hope that people gather from this tragedy: How are you spending your time. Are you spending it with people you love or are you in a routine just trying to get the day to end? I submit to you that living to "get to the end of the day" is not what you should be doing. It is better that Kobe died while trying to have quality time with the people he loved, than sitting at home watching TV alone, waiting to [physically] die.

The last thing I want to add here is about Kobe's rape allegation. No, don't go rolling your eyes. Let's assume that he did what he was accused of. Karma came for him with 4 daughters. Now most times when people talk "karma" they mean it as a kind of universal revenge that has to mean some suffering. Not so. I'm certain that at some point Kobe looked at his daughters and thought: damn, would I have wanted my daughter to be in that situation? Would I be defensive of such behavior if that was my daughter? Kobe's daughters was his karma. He had to "make it right" for those closest to him and it seems he lived up to that. It may not satisfy those who want to make that situation the defining moment of his life, but Karma is not always so neat.

So my condolences to the family and my wishes to all to [re]evaluate what you're doing with your remaining time.

Was The Base Leader a Govt. Agent?

So prior to the Va 2A rally I wrote about the psy-op going on where various so called "white supremacist" groups and persons would be put before the public in an obvious attempt to smear the citizens of Va. I also commented that any persons would likely be agents or other "false flag" type persons. Soon thereafter there was an announcement of arrests of people involved with an organization called "The Base". Now we find out that the leader of that organization may in fact be a government operative. Here's The Guardian:

Beginning in 2009 and until as late as 2019, Nazzaro billed himself as an intelligence expert working with various government and military agencies.

Nazzaro is the principal of an LLC called Omega Solutions International (OSI), a company offering a range of intelligence and security contracting.

Its website, which was removed from the Internet sometime after August 2019, boasted of the firm’s “experience conducting intelligence analysis for government agencies, military organizations, and private businesses”, as well as access to a network of seasoned security professionals with expertise in counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, homeland security, hostage rescue/negotiations, psychological operations, and more.

The firm also has a Cage Code, which is an administrative requirement for military and government contractors.

Materials inspected and sources consulted by the Guardian indicate that Nazzaro, as “Spear”, has faced persistent suspicions from current and former members of the group that he is a “fed”, or the agent of a foreign government, or that the Base is a “honeypot” intended to lure neo-Nazis out into the open for the benefit of law enforcement agencies.

Former members have cited this as a reason for leaving.

Not shocked. And:

The Guardian has discovered that all of the business addresses associated with Nazzaro’s OSI LLCs are “virtual offices”. This describes a situation where a second company provides a business address, and sometimes meeting rooms and greeting services, for businesses who do not wish to maintain their own premises.

The addresses are often prestigious: OSI’s virtual address locations include Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and K Street in Washington DC, an address associated with federal government contracting and lobbying.

*Chuckle*

Funding Religion or Funding Students?

The Washington Post has a piece on a pending SCOTUS case involving school vouchers and religious schools.

Parents who believe religious schools such as Stillwater absolutely are the places for their children are at the center of what could be a landmark Supreme Court case testing the constitutionality of state laws that exclude religious organizations from government funding available to others. [My underlines]

Keep an eye on the underlined statement and keep this question in mind: Is the state funding religious organizations or funding citizens educational choices?

In this case, the issue rests on whether a scholarship fund supported by tax-deductible donations can help children attending the state’s private schools, most of which are religious.

So citizens voluntarily fund a scholarship program that is handed out to children to attend [private] schools.

And Montana told the court that, as in 37 other states, it is reasonable for its constitution to prohibit direct or indirect aid to religious organizations.

“The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,” Montana said in its brief. “Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.”

It is one thing for a state to not directly fund a religious institution. That would indeed set a "Church-State" conflict. But the so-called "indirect" rule is, in my opinion, unconstitutional because it dictates to the citizens what they can spend their tax dollars on. The state has no authority to dictate to citizens how they can spend their money short of criminal enterprises.

The Montana case is prompted by a 2015 decision by the state’s legislature to create a tax-credit program for those who wanted to donate to a scholarship fund. The program allowed dollar-for-dollar tax credits to those who donated up to $150 to an organization that provides aid to parents who want to send their children to private school. [My underlines]

Again note that the money is given to parents who decide where their children will go to school. The state has no business telling a parent where they can send their children to school (again short of criminal enterprises) AND by telling parents they cannot exercise what they see as their duty to provide a religious education for their children, they have stepped on their free exercise rights.

If the people on Montana did not want to provide funds to religious organizations then they should not have set up the government organized scholarship program at all. Which the Montana Supreme Court did:

But Montana, in its brief to the Supreme Court, said the state’s high court took the only option that made sense of both the state’s constitution and its obligation not to single out the religious — striking down the tax-credit program for both religious and nonreligious private schools.

So what's the problem?

The plaintiffs “now contend that even that is unconstitutional,” wrote Washington lawyer Adam Unikowsky, who is representing the Montana Department of Revenue. “It matters not, in Petitioners’ view, that the government also does not aid similarly situated nonreligious schools. . . . Petitioners claim that the Constitution prohibits the bare act of applying a state constitutional provision that keeps government out of the business of aiding religious schools.”

This is plain overreach by the plaintiffs. You cannot on the one hand claim that you have a right to funds on equal terms and on the other claim that the state owes you a program. The state owes the plaintiffs no such thing. The decision by the Montana high court was right. I don't think there is much for SCOTUS to do here. At the bare minimum, plaintiffs who felt they were discriminated against while the program was in effect can argue for relief or remedy for that past action. Other than that all the SCOTUS can really do is affirm the all or none that the free exercise clause implies.

If Guns Kill People

And so the 2A march/gathering in Richmond Virginia went off without the slightest bit of violence. Blackface/Klansman governor Northam was no doubt disappointed that his fake news alarmist bullshit announcement about "credible threats of violence" did not result in actual violence a-la-Charlottesville. He sent out a lie-filled message about how the police "de-escalated", when in fact there was nothing to "de-escalate". The people said they were coming to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to petition the government while exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. That was all.

So since there were perhaps more guns per square mile in that rally than are in anywhere in the US that is not a military installation, one has to seriously question the sanity of anyone who still posits that guns kill people rather than people kill people, sometimes with guns.

While we are myth busting, We have also shown that so called "right-wing gun nuts" are not the type to cause violence. Notice that in the absence of "Antifa" "counter-protesters" there wasn't a problem. In stark contrast to almost anywhere else they show up.

Also, there were quite a number of black people, some armed, at this rally. I know, they must either be:

1) Cooning for the white man.
2) Buck dancing for the white man.
3) Uncle Tomming for the white man
4) Boot licking the white man's boots. You know there were a lot of boots around.

But most certainly these black people were not simply citizens who enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms whether to sport shoot with, simply have and/or to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. But be it understood that it doesn't matter if there were black (or other) people there or not. A citizen's rights are not determined by their race. If the crowd had been 100% white then that is not a problem, any more than if a 100% black crowd marched anywhere, like say the Million Man March.

I saw a comment to the effect that in NY black people get jailed for having guns while "white supremacists" can march around VA. This silly person fails to understand that if NYS did not have unconstitutional gun laws in effect that black men, who are not criminals or engaging in criminal behavior, would NOT be locked up for gun possession. The problem is the law and the idiots writing and passing them, not so-called "white supremacists" in Va or elsewhere.

This is just like how these liberals miss that Eric Garner was arrested and died due to laws passed by liberal Democrats that criminalize selling "loosies" with the excuse of "saving the children" when it is, in fact, a matter of protecting the [huge] tax revenue from taxed tobacco products.

Lastly, there were a number of people, online mostly, that told people not to show up in VA yesterday. Shame on them. On the one hand I understand the desire to not be involved in a setup. And I certainly understand not wanting to get into physical conflicts with Antifa, an organization that enjoys much friendly media coverage. However; Antifa and FBI agents posing as neo-nazis should not dissuade citizens from exercising their rights. Do not give in to the heckler's veto.

So When Does Biden Get Arrested?

So the GAO released a report yesterday that Trump broke the law when he withheld money appropriated by Congress to Ukraine.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.

Once again here is Joe Biden discussing one of his trips to Ukraine:

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...

Say GAO, why weren't you interested when Joe Biden and Obama (since Biden said Obama was on board) substituted his own policy priorities for those that Congress enacted into law? Where was the report? Did anyone even investigate?

It doesn't matter if the delay was 6 seconds or 6 months. Joe clearly "substituted his own policy" and threatened to withhold money. Isn't that the so-called "crime" that Trump is being impeached for? If it wasn't a crime under Biden, how is it a crime now?

Also since the GAO wants to say the following:

524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.

Then why didn't the GAO charge president Obama of violation of immigration law, as passed by Congress, when he created DACA and DAPA out of thin air? Since that, according to the GAO is a "violation of law" and therefore a "crime", Why wasn't Obama impeached? Serious question since the GAO says that the president can't NOT execute the laws passed by Congress.

The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation. See B-135564, July 26, 1973.

So again, since Biden clearly made a "unilateral" decision to withhold funds from Ukraine until a prosecutor who was investigating the company Biden's son worked for, was fired. It would seem to me that the GAO should have investigated the action and declared the Joe was in "violation of law". Didn't happen. Why not?

The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”4 2 U.S.C. § 684. The President may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority, by proposing a “rescission.”5 2 U.S.C. § 683. In either case, the ICA requires that the President transmit a special message to Congress that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for deferral or rescission and the reason for the proposal. 2 U.S.C. §§ 683–684.

So when Biden said he was getting on the plane and if they didn't do what he asked right then and there, he had already notified Obama to notify Congress that he was holding up money? Cause it's not like he didn't get on the plane not already knowing what he was going to do. So I'd like to see that paperwork.