If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down (and there won't be nuclear war)

 If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down (and there won't be nuclear war)

 If Ukraine Joins NATO, Putin would likely back down, and there likely won't be nuclear war. Russia has never shown a propensity to want to die in a nuclear Armageddon, and withdrew nukes from Cuba during the cold war and apologized over sending bomber aircraft to the U.S., out of fear of retaliation from the U.S. Despite all the bluster, Russia has historically been terrified of nuclear war, and while willing to send endless amounts of soldiers to the meat grinder in a horrific way just like WWII, I doubt they're willing to risk nuclear war. On the other hand Putin is surrounded only be yes men, likely believes Russia could survive a nuclear war given drills where more than 40% of the population went in to underground shelters, and nuclear protocol has changed in Russia justifying the use of nuclear weapons to deter conventional as well as nuclear attacks, meaning Russia might use nukes even if nukes are not used against them and as a preemptive first strike or retaliation. We're likely closer to nuclear war than any time in human history as Putin is a mad man, aging and likely with dementia, who is at this point more unpredictable than he was in the past. Putin was no saint, looking at the 10's of thousands dead in Chechnya, Moldova, and Georgia, and looking at Syria, Kazastkan, and their arming of Hezbollah and the Taliban. However, he also was always seen as a cold, rational, calculating individual who made strategic and not personal decisions. Ukraine seems to be involved in deeply personal feelings, and represents the loss of the soviet union, something they refuse to give up.

Despite all of this, I'm doubtful Russia would really risk nuclear war, if only his advisors stopping him. Most likely, Russia and Putin aren't really willing to risk nuclear war, and if Ukraine joined NATO likely would back down. Russia invaded Ukraine before it could join NATO, and has never invaded Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia, all former soviet states that border Russia and joined NATO. Furthermore America itself borders Russia with Alaska, and Russia has never actually invaded in the U.S. Both Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO and are known NATO allies and border Russia, making up a larger surface area than Ukraine does. Russia has always demanded that none of these countries join NATO, but this is due to their fear of 

Republicans do Welfare better - The leftwing very expensive poverty

Republicans do Welfare better

One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them?

Judge Democrat and Republican areas, states and cities, by almost any metric. Crime, poverty, homelessness, murder rates, access to healthcare, graduation rates and grade point averages, even health outcomes. It's literally almost impossible to find anything the Democrats or left-wing parties are better at in the U.S., and even in most countries overseas. [1] If you look at the top 30 cities for violent crime and murder in the U.S., 27 are Democrat, and Republicans have cities with comparable population sizes and densities without this level of crime. [1][2][3]  Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani ran New York, a traditionally democrat city, and crime was cut in half during this period, and went back up under Democrat rule later on. Out of the top 10 states for homelessness, 9 have democrat Governors. In Baltimore, the city has one of the highest amounts of spending per capita for any student in the world, and despite this, they have one of the lowest graduation rates and highest failure rates in the country for education; more than half of Baltimore schools have zero students reaching grade level for math or reading. California has spent more than 100,000 dollars per year per homeless person, enough to literally buy them all houses, and homeless has increased by 1.5 times the amount since these programs were enacted. These states and cities have paid exorbitant, massive tax rates, several times that of other states, to actually make the problem worse. It's hard to find a single success story for any democrat area adopting these policies. 

Despite insisting constantly, endlessly, gratingly, in their ceaseless screeching that they have the one true solution to all our problems with yet another useless liberal welfare program, liberal welfare programs obviously fail by almost any observable metric. This is despite paying exorbitantly high tax rates in all these cities for the supposed benefits of the government policing you for walking down the street (stop and frisk), eating salt, having certain colors of cars or certain type of Styrofoam, or even certain sized sodas, all actual laws in New York and Democrat cities. This was even before mask mandates and shutting down all small businesses, synagogues, and churches, while allowing big corporations to stay open, the party that pretends to be against big business (despite receiving the most corporate funding and open support from companies which ban Republicans off their platform, such as Donald Trump). Despite all this, they then release almost all the violent criminals by emptying out the prisons, all the while policing the very air you breathe, literally even regulating how you can breathe which used to be a joke among Republicans (mask mandates), don't let you own a gun or simply walk down the street unaccosted, or even park your car (meters), while doing nothing or even assisting actual violent criminals. Prosecution rates for violent criminals in some Democrat cities is down from 85%, to just 15% in just a few years time. At the same time, violent crime and homicides have more than doubled in many cases. 40% of cities in America have stopped reporting crime rates all together; 75% of New York Cities district do not even report crime at all, giving an artificial appearance as if crime is dropping to 1/4 it's actual levels. 

Despite all you pay, the government wastes the money policing you and normal human behavior, and does nothing to stop crime, lower homelessness, or alleviate poverty. You pay more for less. It's in effect, very expensive poverty. You pay more to live in a miserable place like the Bronx, LA or even New York, and have horrible conditions to deal with. You can pump nearly endless money in to these programs and get even worse results as the systems, the programs themselves, are simply ran poorly. It's not about more money, more money, more money. The left has sold many of the American people that more spending is equal to more compassion, that them spending your tax money is somehow compassionate (giving you back your own money), but in reality those that can do more for less are the one's who can alleviate your problems. While not being seen "as sexy" to do something like explain the Laffer Curve or marginal tax rate issues, or to talk about helping the economy or refining tax spending, it produces real, legitimate real world results for the average person that actually helps them in their every day lives. While Banal, you don't need a flashy or insane program with some fancy new idea, but something that simply reflects common sense, practical, grounded ideas that have already been around for a while. Ideas proven, in the real world, and not some liberal dream world to actually work. The Baltimore school district for example spends far more than the national average on education, among the highest spending per student of any city in America, and has the literal worst gradepoint averages and graduation rates in the entire country, with half the schools having all the kids there not at grade level for math or reading. The endless, bottomless, blackhole spending ends up with literally the worst results in the country by the metrics, as most of the money is funneled to useless pet programs or teacher's unions, which ends up largely in Democrat reelection campaigns or is simply wasted (in one instance, teacher's unions received 11 billion dollars in government funding, and yet 10 billion of that went to Democrats. Yes literally 90% of the funding to teacher union's went to Democrat reelection campaigns, they were even sued). 

When Republicans say they want the government out of things, what they mean is to put an end to the forms of government interference that actually makes things worse, such as useless liberal welfare programs that actually seem to always make the problem worse. Republicans are generally not anarchists who are against the existence of the state, and generally tend to be pro-police and military for example (while the left calls them racist fascists), as well as have in the past expanded medicare and medicade as well as created various government welfare programs, such as the PEPFAR program which put an end to the AID's pandemic under Bush and is credited to have done so internationally, largely by using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, or Medicare D a program by Bush to pay for prescription medication. Republicans simply create less for more; a more efficient program that spends less to get better results. The left also uses problems they create with their programs to justify more of their ridiculous program, largely aimed at targeting you and blaming you for all the problem they create. For example, they left will get rid of or defund police in their cities, and when crime goes up, rather than bringing the police back, they insist they need to disarm you and take more of your rights via gun control, which just leaves you disarmed and not criminals who still have guns and will continue to get guns by breaking the law (buying home made or smuggled guns off the black market, which can be accessed by the internet). The Democrats claim your freedom of speech might to lead to violence, after all your words could provoke someone, and your ability to own a gun might lead to violence (despite hundreds of millions of gun owners, and tens of thousands of murders, literally 0.01% of legal gun owners being violent criminals or less), therefore we need to take away your speech and your guns, but nevermind the actual rapists and murderers we just let out of prison, and all the cops we just defunded. The problem according to them, is YOU, not their terrible policies that lead to this nightmare scenario of endless riots and gang warfare. 

And does crime ever go down in liberal cities when they ban guns, raise taxes, and restrict your freedoms? One has to ask, if liberal welfare policies work, why don't they? Why haven't they? If they worked, why are Democrat areas worse off by every available metric, and Republicans better by virtually all of them? Is it black magic, completely 100% random, some kind of insane fluke for the last 70 years? Or, is it less magical and insane, and simply a matter of bad policies the democrats won't take responsibility for. It gets tiring, after a while, hearing the left screech about compassion, when they've done nothing but run their cities down in to the ground, often times literally burning them down to the ground in riots. In the 30's, democrats claimed the problem was black people causing all the crime, but couldn't explain why Republican areas with more black people didn't have as much crime as their cities. In the 70's, democrats claimed it was a lack of regulations on guns and speech, but still couldn't explain why crime was only centered in their areas. Since the 90's they've reversed things and claimed actually it's the police who are secretly all racist and not them, but once again, can't explain why it's only their cities and states with the problems and high crime. Why don't our Republican areas have the same problem, if we are supposedly the more racist-er one's, and it's all the secret racist police's problems? Every time they demand we impose a federal solution to change the entire country to their whims, to reflect their cities and their frequently insane or absurd policies, despite their cities having objectively the worst outcomes and their policies having shown a continuous record of failures. 

Despite their continuous string of failures for the last 70 years and total 180 degree flip on some political positions (which they insist Republicans and Democrats "switched", another dubious claim), they still blame Republicans for all their problems, and still have never taken responsibility for their failures, thus leading to the problems in these places never being fixed. How could it possibly be Republicans and a random Republican town 1500 miles away causing all the problems in democrat cities, when we don't have the same problem here? Apparently, secret racists or evil guns waddle out of the gunsafes of republican gun owners 1500 miles away from Texas or some other red state and gun down unarmed black youths every night, with it never possibly being the problem of their own failed policies. If they could admit the problem and then actually accept what was necessary to fix things, this would change, but it's Anathema to what being a democrat is. What would be the point of them if they all essentially became Republicans? Instead they lie, deride, and attack Republicans, smearing them as having a lack of compassion, being evil, being terroristic, and even racist, despite Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, freeing the slaves, and Republicans passing most civil rights bills even as far as the 90's, of which Democrats such as Biden and Kamala harris have tried to repeal racial protections for hiring in the civil rights bill as late as 2023 (no seriously, read their proposed amendment, it wants to remove race as a protected category so you can choose not to hire black people). Democrats insist we are and have done every evil under the sun, ironically every evil that they have done in the past including making the KKK and slavery, and rather than winning by merit, they win by lying about their opponents. Despite all this bluster, just stop for a moment and think about how democrats have improved your city, or state, if in any way possible. Even at the federal level, under Biden's gas and economic policies, gas has more than tripled in price, inflation has gone up by 20-40%, the cost of everything including housing is skyrocketing, and you're taxes have gone up; you're essentially paying more for less. It's very expensive poverty, where you pay more in Taxes, and it actually makes things worse. Consider that, maybe, just maybe, their politics just don't work, and may even make things worse. In some cases, even deliberately. Consider, that maybe Republicans simply do welfare better. 

Corruption and incompetence 

It's not very probable that everything the left does wrong is on purpose, given that mistakes are human, and the left doesn't seem to be all that smart. When bumbling and jumbling sentences together, it's hard to even know what Biden is really trying to achieve, or if "Trunadafannananapressure", or "Badakafcare" is really an important part of their infrastructure plan. Doubtless there is a large degree of incompetence and stupidity on their side. However, it's also difficult to believe this is all a part of a laser guided coincidence that all happened by mistake; too much of it is systematically coordinated, has been argued for, for more than 70 years despite it's history of failure, and seems to make democrats and their allies rich, and give them more power. Corruption is a big part of the problem; if you waste welfare funding, let's say millions of dollars for homeless shelters go to democrat-owned hotels instead (this actually happened in LA), it's inevitable the problem never gets solved. If 90% of school funding goes to teacher's unions that then give it directly back to democrats to get reelected to give themselves even more money (this happened in Baltimore), then why do we act surprised when the most highly funded schools in America are actually just a money laundering scheme for democrats, and it's the students themselves who suffer from it? By failing, the left creates a problem, and then demands more funding to solve it. There's more homelessness, we more more money, there's worse student grade averages, we need more money. And where does that money go? To homeless shelters and students? Of course not, straight to their own pockets through malicious programs. If they can create a problem, they can sell themselves as the solution, make it worse, and then destroy things even further. The more homeless people there are, the more funding they get, and the more funding they can then misuse to the same programs that are never intended to solve the problem. 

It's hard to believe that democrats own the hotels getting the billions of dollars from the anti-homelessness programs, and then when they kick out all the homeless people and just use the money for themselves, that it was all a "big mistake". No, it seems like there is deliberate malicious corruption on the part of those in office. And while it exists on both sides, the breathtaking openness of the democrats and their sheer level of depravity is not only astounding, but genuinely makes the problem worse. It's not just incompetence; the left does this on purpose. That being said, there is a failure of short term thinking among many democrats, some of which are well-meaning. For example, it's true, indeed that we have 3 times as many homeless shelters as homeless people in this country and thus we actually don't need to build more. A homeless shelters does not prevent the cause of homelessness, it's merely a band-aid solution on top of an existing problem. Even if a homeless person is sheltered, he still is homeless. The root, fundamental cause of the problem is mental illness and drug addiction, with the overwhelming majority, or over 90% of chronically homeless people, of which there are around 100,000 in the U.S. (which is to be fair less than most of Europe, 6 times lower than the UK for example), and so fixing the problem isn't about building another homeless shelter or having another canned food drive which, these are all good things, but rather in attacking the root cause of the problem. I don't mean to demean those who really have donated and put in a lot of their time at shelters or food drive programs, this is a good and moral thing and even necessary, but it is not itself a solution to homelessness. The homeless person who is given a good meal, will wander outside that night and become homeless for another day, needing to come back to get another meal the next day. This keeps them alive, which is a good thing, but does not fundamentally solve homelessness. Why is this person homeless in the first place? There's section nine housing, welfare programs, foodstamps, government loans for housing, charities, and likely family members who would take this person in. So why aren't they able to stay indoors and wander outside? It's not a lack of compassion, but usually a mental health problem on the part of the homeless person themselves. Fixing this is the key to fixing the homelessness problem, and as Republican areas tend to focus on this, the deep long-term problem and not just alleviating short-term needs, we have lower homelessness overall. 

On the face of it, it's easy to see how people could be caught up in donating more to a solution that simply never solves the underlying issue. After all we need homeless shelters, but just not too many of them. It's reasonable to see how a mistake like this might happen organically. However, consider also that as homelessness goes up, homeless programs get more funding; if these organizations can take the money and put it towards expensive hotels or other money laundering programs, they actually profit off of homelessness, and thus never have an incentive to end it. While we like to believe something like this would never happen, it is the rule, not the exception in democrat cities. We can point to cases of this happening in LA, New York, San Francisco, Portland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, and virtually any other democrat stronghold in the country. There is no incentive to end homelessness as their is big money to be made; numerous documentaries, even by democrats themselves have been made of this, but if there is an overwhelming problem of corruption, than there is no desire to fix the problem as it makes them money. It may be hard to understand why at first, but it becomes breathtakingly simple when you look at it; they simply misuse the money. They can say the reason they raised your taxes is to fight homelessness, but if they end up building a new fleet of hotels or football stadiums, you quickly realize this is a lie. Yes they may say it's for one thing, but if they end up spending it on another, isn't it weird they never talk about it afterwards? Much of the media is literally directly owned by the Democrats, such as Bloomberg News which is owned by the former mayor of New York, Bloomberg, or the Washingtonpost which is owned by Jeff Bezos and who is in the top 5 donors to democrats, or CNN which was owned by Ted Turner who literally went duck hunting with fidel castro, a mass murdering communist, and who made CNN with the explicit intention to "show the other side of things", the socialist, mass-murdering side of things. Not every one of these people and papers are far left, or as far left and psychotic as Ted Turner, but all of them have an open and obvious bias. Therefore, even when the left is exposed, you often never hear about it, as most the major media corporations are literally owned by democrats or democrat donors, and the few remaining Republican owned or supported outlets are deliberately lied about and suppressed. Out of all the media in the U.S., only 7% is Republican, which is a staggering figure when you realize they make up half our population. You literally just almost never get to hear their side of things, and thus in your bubble may literally believe Trump is a fascist, Republicans are sekrit evil racists and so on, but curiously never actually get to hear from them. It's always someone talking about them, but never them getting to talk on CNN or the Washingtonpost or the New York times, themselves. Rumour and gossip about them wins the day. 

Some Raw metrics and explanation 

Despite how obvious the difference is, what are the metrics, the methods of gathering this information and the reason why things are the case? It's obvious when just looking at Democrat and Republican cities and States, Republican places tend to always have lower crime and homelessness, poverty and other such issues, but what is the deeper meaning as to why? First I will explain the statistics in and of themselves and what they mean exactly, and then expound deeper in to why these things are the case. 

The upcoming Global Simultaneous Default (and resulting economic crash)

The upcoming Global Simultaneous Default (and resulting economic crash)

It's no secret that with the corona virus pandemic and the resulting economic lock-downs that there are going to be severe economic repercussions. While major corporations had made record profits, small businesses are falling apart, in some cases deliberately shut down by the government (nail salons must shut down but large stores are allowed to run without impunity despite getting much more raw foot traffic and thus being more likely to spread covid-19), and the implications of this have not been fully felt yet. Small businesses are needed to buy and distribute products making corporations dependent on them for part of their wealth, and the middle class in general who has been hurt most by these shut downs is needed to purchase products from such large businesses in the first place, and thus these losses while immediately damaging to the business owning class will set in for the whole economy without their input shortly as will the loss of much of the middle class backbone of the U.S. People can only cut in to their savings or welfare checks for so long, before their lost jobs and money finally hit the economy and people stop panic buying goods and instead save what little they have left. It's likely that the government will hand out checks to people to keep this at bay, but this only furthers the inflation. Furthermore, with people fleeing to other countries, states, cities and areas, certain areas are destined to have incredible economic crashes while others have a boon. Predicting an upcoming economic crash after the corona virus pandemic is no feat of tremendous foresight, and could be seen as almost as the equivalent difficulty to hearing thunder or seeing lightning. Frankly, it's only a matter of time before something snaps. 

However, what is seldom talked about is the upcoming Global Simultaneous Default, or Defaulting to pay back loans by most major world government and the planned, albeit it poorly named, "Economic reset". Economies cannot reset, and debt cannot be erased, it can only be shifted and money stolen, money that won't exist to take from other countries after every country crashes simultaneously. In the attempts to pay this off, it is very likely China will buy out the debt to Europe, and massive levels of inflation, possibly hyper inflation, will ensue. Years before the corona virus pandemic, most European and western countries had taken out enormous loans to pay for massive welfare programs they seemingly had no intention to pay back. Either hubris or lack of concern over potential economic pitfalls, Europe allowed themselves to get in to an incredible amount of debt needlessly, a fact I covered previously in 2019, and predicted that, if combined with a major global catastrophe, could spell the economic destruction of Europe. For a brief run-down during 2019, not after the corona virus pandemic but before it, Luxembourg had nearly 7 million dollars in debt per citizen (yes, million), which was 6300% of their GDP. The Netherlands had 265,000 dollars in debt per person, at around 522% of their GDP. The UK had 127,000 dollars in debt per person, which was 313% of their GDP. Greece had 240%, Belgium 265%, Switzerland 269%, France 213%, Finland 196%, and the list goes on. The U.S., which by comparison was in the most debt it had ever been at the time, had 115% of their GDP in debt per citizen, or around 60,000 per person. 

What makes matters particularly daunting is that while the debt has been mounting in Europe, the GDP has been falling. Virtually every country in Europe has seen a fall in GDP per capita, or how much each citizen has and their resulting tax payments, and with the value of the Euro collapsing combined with it's ever increasing and expanding debt as well as nightmarish economic policies that have in 10 short years almost completely turned around some of the most successful countries in Europe, it's hard not to see the frightening potential for a rapid economic crash in Europe and the inevitable results of a European economic crash. This is not even including the yet-to-be calculated financial problems of the Corona virus after 2019. While the U.S. and UK used to have the same GDP per capita, in 10 years the UK has gone from 50,000 to about 40,000, and the U.S. from 50,000 to 60,000, giving us 50% more money than the UK. Norway has dropped from about 100,000 per citizen to 75,000 per citizen. In comparison to the dollar, the Euro has dropped in value by roughly 40% in the same time frame, which is quite a bit of inflation to have. The western world contains most of the world's wealth and income, and Europe makes more than entire continents combined, such as Africa or South America representing billions of people, or parts of Asia, making them an incredibly important economic hub. Without their presence much of the world will suffer as well, as will the U.S., and it is unlikely anyone has the money to actually bail them out. With no country large enough to do so other than likely China, who has profited in the pandemic, it is very likely Europe will become indebted to China, and thus become virtual slaves to their whims, such as social credit scores (methods to judge citizens behavior), withdrawing from military conflicts which oppose their allies, or simply being forced to suck up to China despite their obvious human rights violations. Perhaps worst of all will be the continuation of China's human right's violation and growing power over the world with few western countries willing or able to fight them in an economic crash. 

It's difficult to stress how much debt Europe is in, given it is largely first world countries that no-one can pay back the money from. When there is no-one left to borrow from, as these countries are the primary lenders, they are destined to collapse, especially if all of them begin to default simultaneously, and thus no country can back the other up. There is a loose network in the western world that allows for bail outs in a time of crisis (Iceland for example had 11 times it's GDP per capita in debt absorbed largely by the U.S. during it's financial collapse), but if too large of a country or too many fall apart at the same time, then it will become impossible to bail them all or even perhaps any of them out, at least without relying on China. Thus the term I would use is a "Global Simultaneous Default" that would crash the system, where every country defaults on repaying their loans all at once. That Europe was allowed to get themselves in to this much debt at all is incredible and fantastical, and akin to allowing an enemy army to invade, by allowing themselves to simply just print money from thin air, through incredible financial malpractices such as quantative easing or similiar programs, where the debt is simply ignored leading to what will eventually be inflation. European countries are effectively borrowing from each other without any real intention to back up the money they are borrowing. There is little from whom to borrow money from given the size of the European economy other than itself, and European countries are largely indebted to each other for money they don't have. So for example if a European country were to borrow 300% of it's GDP from another country that borrows 300% from itself, both are essentially loaning out money they don't have, and thus creating an artificial market bubble that is bound to pop. They are creating value where there is none through overloaning money, and thus as both countries are in incredible amounts of debt, both are essentially creating money for the other to use, which will eventually lead to inflation. A government that has it's entire economy's GDP worth in debt is in so much debt it likely will not ever be able to pay it back, and a government far beyond this is almost doomed for collapse especially if it's GDP is falling, thus making it virtually impossible they'll ever be able to pay it back. So, how much debt is Europe in?

Obviously in the modern year it's increased dramatically due to the Corona virus and is still changing and currently known where it will end; all governments have been deficit spending due to the lack of economic activity and need for more government welfare. The U.S.'s debt to GDP ratio has increased dramatically for example, as we spent nearly 9 trillion dollars, or half our debt out of roughly 20 trillion dollars, in a single year, the most we have spent ever in history, and proportionately perhaps even more than during WWII. This has put the U.S. in debt nearly 185% of it's GDP, or, 1.85 times more in debt than it's entire economy. It may take generations to pay this back, as even if 100% of our taxes went to paying this debt, of which we still need money to pay for government programs and still are getting in to debt, and our economy is still not back on track thus generating even less tax revenue, it would take nearly 10-12 years. Considering how much is spent each year and that we are still getting in to debt, it may take decades to still never be able to pay it back, which means defaulting, which means inflation. Back in 2017-2018 however, Europe was already in far more debt than this. 

The U.S. at the time, which by comparison still had the most debt it had ever been in, had only 115% of their GDP in debt per citizen, or around 60,000 per person. This is the amount of external debt owed to other countries and entities outside the country, and Public debt similarly is very high in these countries as well. Most European countries were at or above the U.S. pandemic levels of spending before the corona virus pandemic, in debt more than they likely ever could pay off in a lifetime. Now, it is at even higher levels, with the total figures still unknown. It's no wonder that these countries are calling for a reset, however, it is the countries and people who did not recklessly spend who will effectively have to pay for it, rather than the one's who got in to the debt in the first place. What they are going to call for is effectively mass robbery, to attempt to "reset" the debt, which is impossible, and will mean taking from others to pay for their own debt. This likely means you in some form or another, in ways that can't be avoided. Banks will collapse thus taking your money, hyper inflation will ensue thus halving the value of your money meaning even if you saved, it will be worth half or a third as much, if not less, thus effectively robbing you of your hard earned money. If your money is made to be worth less in order to pay for their debt, it's effectively the same as stealing your money, and if they halve the value of your money, they are essentially stealing half your money or more. If they default on their loans and entire industries crash and you get laid off and lose your job, you will suffer from this even if you saved and were smart and responsible in spending. If the banks start trying to repossess your home or car under the slightest of errors to crack down on people in order to pay their own debts, you will suffer even if you always made your payments on time. While it will be their fault, they will try to steal from you to pay for it, and it will be in many ways completely legal. This will result in mass robbery of the highest level, the robbery of value from an entire economy, and it will be completely legalized or done through trickery. And it will only spiral down from there. China, at some point, is likely to swoop in to try and buy off the debt of these countries they still will be unable to pay even with these draconian economy crashing measures, and thus effectively buy the loyalty of entire countries now dependent on them for their own survival, but likely only after a controlled collapse has already occurred. 

The sad truth is, there are winners and losers to inflation. Those with large amounts of assets, such as gold, land, stocks, bonds, oil, or anything which may go up in value with inflation, will actually have an increase in the relative value of their commodities, while normal ordinary citizens without large gold bars to fall back on, will see the prices of everything, from oil, to food, to cars, to housing, actually go up. This means the average citizen will have everything in their lives become more expensive, while organizations or people with large gold and land reserves, such as banks or the incredibly wealthy, will actually see an increase in how much money they have. Printing money which leads to inflation is enticing for the rich, and for whatever reason or cause it happens, it actually is good for these people, and our economic enemies who may wish to buy our products are far reduced prices relative to their own currency. Our foreign enemies such as China and the ultra-rich may profit, but most of us will see everything become more expensive. Periods of mass inflation are a rare time when the rich can effectively profit off of the suffering of the poor. This is of course not sustainable long term, which is why the Weimar Republic and others have effectively crashed, but turning on and off inflation is difficult and like playing with fire, such endeavors have a tendency to get out of control. Thus in their pursuit of endless greed, it's possible those in control of these events may quickly lose control in part due to their own hubris; in other words, we can't expect them to have a reasonable shut off valve or to respond in time to prevent a major catastrophe. 

What's more is, there didn't seem to be an end in sight or a path to pay it off, even under ideal conditions, which these are not. While the U.S. economy had improved dramatically in pre-Covid years, Europe as a whole was falling dramatically. The GDP per capita in Europe from 2008 to 2018 was falling in most countries, especially in the richest countries, and only in 2018-2019 did it improve slightly, to be completely tarnished by the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, Norway, one of the richest countries in Europe, which used to make 100,000 per person, had fallen to only 75,000 a year, marginally above the U.S. in 2018 at 65,000 a year, while the UK, once at our level of 50,000, has in the same time frame fallen to 40,000, at one point making equal money to the U.S. and then making 50% less, which is not insubstantial. While the U.S. GDP per capita at the time was roughly 65,000 per person, Spain and Italy hovered around 30,000 per person, with greece at 20,000, and even Finland, a Scandinavian country, at approximately 40,000 a year, far below switzerland or Norway which used to hover around 100,000 per person per year. Most European countries made far less money than one might perceive them as having made, being much more poorly off than they had for nearly half a century. Further, the standard of living in the U.S. was also substantially higher; studies [1] found that in the same time period, the U.S. standard of living was higher for the average person in poverty in the U.S. than the middle class in Europe, meaning it was not only raw numbers, but in how people lived as well. Goods are typically cheaper in the U.S. than Europe, with burgers, milk, gasoline and other commonly available goods being much cheaper, housing especially so (at 3-4 times lower prices for the same square feet of space), and thus not only did Americans have more money, but they got more for their money as well. 

It's no secret Greece was falling apart, but it's likely not known that Spain, Italy, France, Sweden and other were going through similiar periods of unrest. Just for comparison, to the U.S. at 65,000 a year, Slovenia, Estonia, Portugal, made around 25,000 a year, while Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Croatia made around 15,000, with Romania and Croatia at 12,000, and Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Albania 5,000 to 10,000, with Albania making just 5,000. This is in comparison to the 65,000 of the U.S., which is 13 times higher than Albania and 2-3 times higher than much of Europe. Despite the enormous amounts of debt, most of these countries had been losing money, and thus were nowhere near U.S. levels. It's not just that these countries are in debt, but that their GDP per capita was falling as well, meaning their economies were not improving and they would have no way to pay off this debt one accrued. Part of this is due to massive unemployment figures; despite "unemployment" figures being quoted as being low, real employment figures went down by about a third. Countries with nearly 50% employment dropped to 30%, including Denmark and many Scandinavian countries, and reports showed that 50-70% of people under the age of 30 in many of these countries were unemployed. Many had never held a job for the last 10 years, and not only were living off the government welfare, but were not developing job skills and becoming depressed and lethargic as a result. This problem has only gotten worse, and with the pandemic has been stretched to it's limit. When the drop in money, overspending and lack of economic involvement is considered, it was inevitable that Europe and most the western world was heading towards a financial collapse; with the absolutely devastating response to the Covid-19 pandemic, it seems like the world is headed towards a global collapse of such magnitude it's almost unfathomable to think of the consequences. It's hard not to think of a reason why so many are pushing for a "great reset" in an attempt to reset debt, and were doing so a decade prior, which is impossible to actually do in real life and would be a catastrophe in it's own right. Either the world faces an economic crisis of unimaginable proportions soon, reminiscent of the Great Depression in the U.S. or Weimar Germany in Europe, or finds some way to avoid a total collapse, but in either case we are looking a catastrophe that was long in the making and now largely unavoidable. 

Kamala Harris banned and restricted Violent Video games in California: The Democrat Agenda to Ban Videos games now and in the Early 2000's

Kamala Harris banned and restricted Violent Video games in California: The Democrat Agenda to Ban Videos games now and in the Early 2000's

There's a frequent reoccurring problem with the left-wing in the United States, and most of the western world, especially regarding the majority political parties. Policies and ideological goals of the left, and specifically the Democrats in the U.S., have been after they were proven to be immensely unpopular, had the blame shifted to the right-wing, and typically the Republicans. While Republicans were the primary one's to push for civil rights in the 60's, a myth emerged that the parties had miracously and suddenly "switched" on the issue, a figure so widely believed that approximately 80-90% of African Americans voted in favor of the democrats after the 1970's, particularly in presidential election, a trend which continues even to the modern day. Despite the 1957 civil rights being being written by Richard Nixon and the 1964 civil rights bill written with his help, the Republican party is often blamed for Jime Crowe era laws, despite being the one's to work to repeal it. There were no serious party changes for people who voted against civil rights and switched over to the Republican side, except one, Strom Thurmond, who after it was revealed he had a black son, reversed his position on civil rights and shifted party allegiance over to the Party of Civil rights. Abraham Lincoln is well known for freeing the slaves, and yet, the Republican party is branded as racist, and even Fascist by many on the left today. It's ironic the term fascist is used so widely, when the New York times themselves advocated for Hitler as far back as 1921, calling him more progressive than FDR who, and making him the first man of the year, explicitly endorsing him as the candidate, the positive media press likely helping him get to power. Despite the left endorsing him, Stalin, Mao, the Soviet union in general, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and numerous other genocidal regimes, notably Noam Chomske, an incredibly influential leader with the left, explicitly endorsing the Khmer Rouge. 

One such issue is on the topic of banning violent video games. Kamala Harris while an attorney general for California at the time, oversaw the landmark supreme court case, where she lost the ban on violent games and the supreme court overruled this, in the name of freedom of speech. The case, known as the "Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the State of California, and Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association", was a law in California which attempted to apply draconian video game restrictions, particularly in regards to violent video games. California among other democrat states tried to ban violent video games, and Leland Yee, a popular child psychologist congressmen who argued in favor of banning violent video games for the sake of children, pushed the charge on the side of the democrats in the 90's and early 2000's, with the votes in congress primary being split between partisan party lines, with Republicans largely against bans and restrictions on guns in media such as hollywood and video games, and the Democrats in favor of it. The famed child psychologist supposedly against gun violence, would later be caught being involved in gun trafficking, and confessed to these crimes after videos by the FBI revealed his involvement in them. [1][2] It's hard to overstate the importance of this, as the leading anti-gun congressmen at the time, perhaps the face of the entire movement, who was anti-gun so much so he was against their mere depictions in movies and video games, was caught illegally trafficking guns for terrorists, largely anti-tank and anti-aircraft rocket launchers, some in to the United States, for his own purposes, effectively disarming the average citizen while arming his own side and America's enemies. What's more insane is that he is now released after a mere 4 years in prison and running for political office, again. And may actually win due to the sheer ignorance of democrat voters. 

Despite Republicans taking the blame for corruption and scandals which often don't even involve crimes, and for trying to ban violent video games, it was democrats who tried largely to ban violent video games. Yet many of the youth, including people I know personally, still believe the exact opposite, even on civil rights and other issues. The importance of this is not only a moral one for restrictions on freedom of speech, but a purely logical one on knowing who to vote for. The first people to complain about the system blindly vote for people that take away all their rights, these democrat voters "Vote Blue no matter who", and fail to realize, in any way, that most of their problems are created by those who claim to fight against these problems. Quietly in the background, the people you elect are working against your own best interests, and all it took was a meme on twitter or a straight up lie on television for you to forget anything about history and create your own reality. The problem with this is you are constantly putting the people against your own stated interests in power, and fail to look in to their voting history or even simply listen to them speak. 

Media Disinformation on American and Canadian Insulin prices (American insulin is actually cheaper)

Media Disinformation on American and Canadian Insulin prices

Despite the notion that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than the U.S., with many left-wing sources such as Business Insider, Slate magazine, CNN, the Washington post, MSNBC, and others reporting that Canadian insulin is far cheaper than U.S. Insulin, this is simply not the case; just for comparison, there is 25 dollar insulin that is provided in the U.S. by Walmart, with no medicare or insurance needed, in comparison to 50 dollar insulin in Canada, and Medicare, Medicaid and Health insurance frequently helps to pay for this insulin (80% or more), making it even cheaper for the end consumer. American Insulin prices in these left-wing articles is often reported to be between 285-350 dollars per vial (285 dollars according to Business insider, 350 according to etc.), vs. only 50 dollars per vial in Canada, supposedly demonstrating how terrible the U.S. medical and drug system apparently is, as according to them insulin is over priced. This is clearly proof that the evil, greedy capitalists have over priced their insulin, and that we need to switch to a government-ran, socialist system which will keep prices low, clearly, never mind that ultra cheap capitalist insulin exists that is half the price of government provided Canadian insulin. No mention is made of course of the type of insulin, difference in quality or quality control, or how the insulin is made, only that they must be exactly the same (even though many different type of insulin related drugs exist, such as more expensive fast acting insulin used only for emergencies, slow acting insulin for daily use, insulin via injection or pills, medicine which boosts insulin production or replicates insulin vs. actual raw insulin, and so on), and that as no individual gets insulin from health insurance of medicare apparently, and they must pay for it out of pocket (almost no diabetic pays for it completely out of pocket, in real life), so, obviously, these costs must be extremely high.

The simple reality is, this is not true. The problem is in the promotion of half-truths; it is true that insulin can be upwards to 285-350 dollars per vial in the United States, but not every single form of insulin is 350 dollars per vial. In the same way a car can cost up to 100,000 dollars, but not all cars are this expensive, insulin can be 350 dollars per vial in the U.S., but averages around 90 dollars, with some forms of insulin as low as 25 dollars per vial, such as a form of Insulin provided by walmart, which is cheaper than the Canadian insulin cost at 50 dollars per vial. The quality obviously differs between variants, but nonetheless Insulin is not necessarily 350 dollars per vial, and neither is Asthma medication for example, which is another related drug price lie promoted by the same left-wing outlets (). For those of you interested in the raw data, you can merely look at a price listing of different forms of insulin on various websites, and come to the same conclusion yourself that it's not actually 285 dollars per vial for every single person. Insulin does not necessarily NEED to be 285-350 dollars per vile, and it is grotesque that the media flagrantly and blatantly lies about this. It is quite revolting, and disgusting, that the media continues to perpetuate such obvious lies, but even more dumbfounding is that so many people believe it. These arguments have been made by political candidates (such as Bernie Sanders or Justin Treduea), and there is such a widespread belief among the public that Insulin is cheaper in Canada, that people have been flocking to Canada in order to get it, instead of just, going to the local grocery store such as Walmart and picking the cheaper form of Insulin. The media disinformation is hurting people, and it is not just malicious for it's own sake, but willing to lead millions of people suffer who unfortunately believe these lies, to push a political objective. Lives depend upon us being correct, and misinformation puts those lives at risk needlessly. It not only is immoral to lie for it's own sake, but given the damage that it can cause; people are risking their lives to go to Canada and get insulin, when there is already cheap Insulin in the U.S.

More importantly than the actual price of Insulin, is how people pay for it; few people pay in the U.S. for the entire cost of insulin themselves, or buy insulin with money spent "out-of-pocket". Health insurance by law must be provided by your employer in the United States, and health insurance frequently covers insulin costs, generally 80% or more. For those without health insurance, or in addition to their existing health insurance, there is also Medicare and Medicaid, which can also pay up to 80% with Medicare D, or the full 100% depending on how life threatening the form of diabetes is. If one qualifies as having a disability according to Social Security via the social security Bluebook, they automatically qualify for Medicare D, and potentially A and B, which will assist in paying for insulin, or depending on the severity, completely pay for diabetic medication. By the end of the user's 20% co-payments, they spend as little as 20 dollars for each 100 dollars of insulin purchased, where as Canadians actually pay the full price without co payments, being forced to pay 50 dollars per insulin vial to their own government who is the only supplier in their single payer healthcare system, which is a higher cost for a lower quality version of insulin. Where as the U.S. government helps citizens pay for their insulin, the Canadian government does not, and so the price differences matter substantially; 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs the consumer 50 dollars if they have health insurance or qualify for Medicare supplemental copay (of which virtually all diabetics do), meaning 250 dollar insulin in the U.S. only costs an individual diabetic person 50 dollars. For those with life threatening diabetes nearly 100% of the cost can be covered, thus leading to no payments at all. When a civilian does not need to pay for their own medicine, they tend to buy more expensive medication than they otherwise would be able to afford, and as the government assists in payment, 250 dollar insulin only costs the average American citizen 50 dollars, meaning with government copay or government mandated copay (such as via insurance), the price is actually the same price or lower than Canada. Health insurance is almost always provided to american citizens by their place of employment, and thus few people actually pay for their own health insurance costs. One, once again, wants insurance to be of a higher quality, when they do not pay for it themselves.

The price of health insurance is not a problem for the consumer, as it is not the consumer who pays for it, but rather the business that is required by law to give their workers expensive health insurance. Lowering the cost of health insurance may benefit large companies, but it would not necessarily be a benefit to most individuals, who do not need pay for health insurance themselves. Healthcare related issues have a has a tendency to expand in to multiple other issues, but the simple reality is, insulin is not only cheaper in the U.S., but often paid for by the U.S. government. A consumer does not worry as much about the price when they themselves don't pay for it, or when they only have to pay 20% of the cost, and thus Americans tend to buy more expensive insulin, as they can afford it. For those that can't, there is extremely cheap insulin available, as well as government welfare programs to help pay for it in it's entirety. This is on top of other benefits to the poor, which helps to provide them with housing (Section 9 government housing), food (SNAPS programs), and cellphone services, that lower taxes for those under the poverty line, and even programs that provide money directly (such as from social security), all of which help free up money to pay for other things, such as medication. As a result, if an individual for some reason did not qualify for medicare or medicaid benefits, or have health insurance, they likely qualify for other programs, which would assist them in paying for other costs in their daily lives, freeing up money to help pay for medication. While it is the law that any diabetic qualifies for at least some nonpayments to help pay for insulin medication, there are also other benefits to the poor, that can help them pay for a variety of things.


The Purpose of Disinformation
It has often been said that the purpose of disinformation is not necessarily to convince, but to confuse, to suppress the truth, and to make it impossible for the average person to regularly discern what the truth is without a tremendous amount of effort. Simply by over-saturating a topic with lies, and flooding it with misinformation, they can wash over the truth, making it difficult to discern reality, obfuscating what the truth is and thus effectively suppressing it, rather than completely changing people's minds. It is as important to make the truth difficult to find, as it is to actually change hearts and minds and win them over to their position. You can't win over everybody, but simply making it hard for people to see reality is far easier.  With this added "tax" or difficulty in finding the truth, most people will not spend the time or effort to wade through all the muck, or succumb to their own biases in the process, leaving only a small percentage who know the whole story. The mere act of lying makes it difficult to tell what is true and what is fake, and requires extra effort to break down the lie and discern the truth;  while telling a lie is easy, finding the truth can be exceedingly difficult. It has been said that a lie travels half way around the world before the truth has even gotten off the ground, and very few people will ever read the correction, assuming one is ever posted. The key purpose of disinformation is not just to persuade or convince, but to suppress the truth, to make the truth difficult or even impossible in some circumstances to discern. If one cannot convince the enemy, it is possible to simply mislead them. It is important to remember these lies are not stand-alone concepts, but are designed specifically to push for a very carefully laid out political objective. There is an overarching objective, and so the lies serve a specific political purpose other than sewing mere confusion for it's own sake; it is designed to help those in office gain power and push a particular policy agenda, which often is not to the benefit of the people.

It is frequent that we see story after story regurgitating the same set of lies, with the entire left-wing media in lock-step with each other, to push specific political agendas, chiefly healthcare reform via single payer healthcare. Be it about misleading asthma medication costs, American costs in general being higher, Americans getting less money from the government, or other obvious and easily disprovable lies, these lies weave a narrative of increasingly costly  The U.S. government pays more for healthcare per citizen, has a higher survival rate than, and has an overall better healthcare system than most other first world countries, yet with left-wing inundation of misinformation, many believe this is not the case. Many arguments can be made about the effectiveness of each individual system if they decide to go through them carefully, but no-one can refute the simple raw data, that the U.S. has a substantially higher survival rate than most European countries, and a survival rate roughly on par with most Scandinavian countries in Europe. Taken from United Nation's healthcare data, an international source on the issue, we can find that

Despite this, many still believe the U.S. healthcare system is far worse, despite having lower costs, the government sharing a greater burden of these costs, a higher survival rate, and higher access to care than many comparable first world countries. The poor automatically qualify for medicare and medicaid, and all emergency healthcare is provided for free in the U.S.

The connection between Drugs and violent crime

The connection between Drugs and violent crime
According to 1994 figures by the Department of Justice [1][2], approximately 2.7% of those who didn't regularly take drugs committed violent crimes, in comparison to 4.8% of those who drank alcohol regularly (1.8 times higher), 14.6% of those who took Cannabis only (5.4 times higher), and 26.1%  of those who regularly took Cannabis, Alcohol, and Cocaine (9.6 times higher). In fact, 48% of all homicide and assault crimes were committed by a drug-dependent individuals, vs. just 9.4% of the population who were dependent on drugs, or a rate of 5 times higher than the general population. These figures remained roughly the same in another analysis in 2004. The trend shows that consistently, drug use is associated with higher rates of violent crime and behavior. While this is likely widely accepted that alcohol and cocaine are likely to lead to higher rates of violence (as well as other "hard" drugs such as meth, heroine, and barbiturates), marijuana remains more controversial, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact the mechanism in the brain is consistent with other drugs and situation which also tend to increase rates of violence (predominately through the increase of dopamine).

Despite the notion that American prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders, the overwhelming majority of prisoners were incarcerated due to violent crimes, or 53.8%, according to 2013 incarceration figures. [3] Only 16% were incarcerated due to drug-related crimes, and of that, only 3.7% were in prison for possession alone, with a smaller percentage being for marijuana. It has been estimated that approximately 20,000 to 40,000 prisoners, or roughly 1-2%, are in prison for marijuana related charges, and generally this involves trafficking, intoxicated driving, or other charges to be incarcerated for long periods of time. Drug users do fill the prison, but overwhelmingly due to them committing other crimes, such as violent crimes or property offenses (theft). These figures remained roughly consistent when compared back to 2009 [4]

Drug users were also significantly more likely to cause accidents that lead to death. Looking at car accidents, 43.6% of fatal car accidents involved a driver testing positive for drugs (compared to just 9.4% of the general population) [5], while marijuana was associated with at least a two fold risk increase for fatal car accidents. Marijuana related car accidents trippled from 1993 to 2015, largely after widespread decriminalization and legalization. [6][7][8] Other accidents are also likely to be higher, given that drugs have a tendency to impair reaction times, basic cognitive functions, and distract the driver, as well as induce temporary psychosis. Legal drugs such as opiods and alcohol, were also associated with higher accident rates, indicating similiar trends with similiar drugs.

When drugs were legalized in many states and countries, violent crimes rates increased. In Portugal for example, violent crime rates increased by 60%, falling only after 16 years to levels that still remain 10% higher than before the legalization [9], and have fallen less than many comparable countries (with the U.S. violent crime rate falling by nearly half, for example [10]). While associated with a reduced risk in spreading HIV, this coincides with the production of drugs which can stop the spread of HIV, and likely was not responsible for this fall. Violent crime rates as well increased in Amsterdam, by nearly triple, after legalization. [11] In California, Colorado, and Washington, after marijuana was legalized for recreational use (not medical use), violent crime rates and car accidents went up concurrently, particularly among those testing positive for marijuana or THC, while violent crime has generally fallen over the rest of the U.S.; crime rates staying the same in these areas would still indicate a problem with violent crime as a result. [12][13] In Colorado from 2014 to 2018 after the legalization of marijuana, the violent crime rate increased from 307.8 to 397.2 (an increase in 29%), while the murder rate went from 2.8 to 3.7 (32%), despite it falling across the rest of the country. While the potential reasons or speculations on this are numerous, it is generally accepted that this occurred. [14][15][16] Some, such as forbes, have speculated this is due to the presence of places that have not prohibited the drugs (yet for some reason in places which did prohibit the drugs, violent crime did not rise), and people from prohibited areas flocking to non-prohibited areas. However, this is not consistent with the fact that Mexico has decriminalized many drugs and cartel members regardless of this increased their activities in California (going from one legal area to another, not an illegal area to a legal one), and the fact that legalizing the drug was said to in theory reduce profits for the cartels and drive down their activities, which it did not. If legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of crime from drug dealers, then the theory of drug legalization being useful for this reason is defeated outright.

Further, we know about the effects drugs have on the brain, that thus demonstrably, causatively prove why the drugs would increase rates of violent crime. Studies on the brain indicate that Marijuana increases dopamine levels and that THC is a dopamine antagonist, thus replicating the increase in violence associated with high levels of dopamine caused by other means, such as by alternative drugs (for example, cocaine), schizophrenia, or even sporting events, and found a 7 fold increase after compensating for socioeconomic status and other factors. "38% of the participants did try cannabis at least once in their life. Most of them experimented with cannabis in their teens, but then stopped using it. However, 20% of the boys who started using pot by age 18 continued to use it through middle age (32-48 years). One fifth of those who were pot smokers (22%) reported violent behavior that began after beginning to use cannabis, whereas only 0.3% reported violence before using weed. Continued use of cannabis over the life-time of the study was the strongest predictor of violent convictions, even when the other factors that contribute to violent behavior were considered in the statistical analysis. In conclusion, the results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes." [17][18] Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking, and marijuana use were all more prevalent among young adults raised in households with greater resources, negating the argument that higher rates of violence among marijuana users was due to poverty levels or previous criminal lifestyles. [19][20]

It is very likely that violence rates increasing after drug legalization is not a coincidence brought on by other factors, when it is well known it's impact on the brain is likely to impair reasoning and judgement skills, with impulsivity being a primary factor in the likelihood for individuals to commit violent crime. [21][22] With impaired reasoning and cognitive skills, decision making skills are impacted, especially when the risk-reward centers of the brain are over stimulated, such as with dopamine, and so individuals are more likely to engage in unpredictable or risky behavior, thus increasing their chance of committing a violent crime. The emotional state of the user is less important when analyzing violent crimes; the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed out of a desire to obtain money (such as through burglary or muggings), and not due to extreme anger. Thus even if the individual is less prone to anger while on the drug, this is unlikely to decrease the chance of a violent crime. Impulsivity is a key factor linked to crime, and a lack of self control is more likely to lead to violence than the emotional state of the user. Drugs have also been known to agitate the user and increase paranoia or anxiety, with fear, and not anger, being more heavily linked to violent crime and behavior in general.



Conclusions
It is my opinion that the emphasis of law enforcement with drug crimes should focus on Rehabilitation, instead of incarceration, which should only be used as a last resort. Drug addiction can be treated, and is more likely to be successful if the individual goes through rehabilitation than through the prison system. Mandatory rehabilitation is likely a more effective as well as compassionate method to deal with drug users. Drug rehabilitation tends to prevent recidivism 40-60% of the time, in comparison to 10-30% of the time for incarceration. [23][24] However, we should not be permissive, allowing reckless behavior. While drug use is often considered to be a victimless crime, like traffic violations, such as speeding or running stop signs, reckless behavior can endanger others, and lead to higher rates of accidents or violence. If certain behaviors and actions are more likely, but not always certain to injure others, there is still a prescient need for law enforcement to be involved to prevent these reckless acts. While likely not always intentional, drug use is associated with higher rates of violence and crime, and the mechanisms in the brain which decrease self-control and increases proclivities towards crime should not be ignored. While there is a need to balance freedom and security, in my opinion recklessness can be just as immoral and dangerous, producing just as many victims, thus not being justified as a "victimless crime". Homicides make up approximately 15,000 deaths a year, however accidents make up over 160,000, over 10 times higher. [25] Nonetheless, it is for the individual to decide what their opinion's on drug legalization and decriminalization are, but hopefully these figures and data will dispel some rumors and misconceptions on drugs and crime, particularly given that it is a heated political topic.

Government and Trump's response to the COVID-19 Crisis

Government and Trump's response to the COVID-19 Crisis
Enormous amounts of misinformation persist regarding COVID-19, which as a major pandemic is bound to lead to speculation and conspiracy theories, even by mainstream outlets. Many have tried to capitalize on the issue for political gain, and so rumors abound about supposed failures or dealings. While difficult to pin them all down due to the evolving situation, several rumors or misconceptions can be put to bed. It's important to remember that the response to COVID-19 does not rest on any individual or singular person, be it Donald Trump, Doctors, or other politicians, and instead our response is a combination of the aggregate of people working together. No singular person can take responsibility for all the good and bad events that have occurred, and china is ultimately responsible for the spread by lying to the world about the disease ahead of time, and it's affiliates. Baseless partisan speculation about the issue detracts from the overall crisis and can even spread panic which may make things worse, but there are things being done to help by members of government and the general public.

Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.


Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Efficacy 
(Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia)

Much speculation of Hydroxychloroquine persists regarding it's efficacy of treating COVD-19 from the novel Corona virus. Some have gone so far as to block it's use after Trump recommended it, such as Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, until reversing course four days later [1], and another political individual, Congresswoman Tavia Galonksi [2], suggested Trump should be tried in the hague for human rights violation merely for mentioning it, understandably an incredible and extreme accusation. "I can’t take it anymore. I’ve been to The Hague. I’m making a referral for crimes against humanity tomorrow. Today’s press conference was the last straw. I know the need for a prosecution referral when I see one." However, despite the hysteria and desire to score political points, several governments, including China, South Korea, and Italy [1][2][3] and the U.S. government's CDC and FDA have approved it's use and shown positive results from it, giving rise to the hope that, when combined with other drugs, it would serve as an effective treatment for COVID-19 symptoms. There is no vaccine or definite cure for COVID-19 as of April 10th, however there are treatment options available which help to keep people alive and allow them to breathe better, such as ventilators to increase breathing, drugs which help clear out mucous in the lungs such as Lasix, general anti-viral drugs commonly used to treat HIV such as Kaletra, and drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine. [4] As the drug is a respiratory disease that kills by flooding lungs with fluid, any effort to improve the patient's breathing dramatically increases their survivaiblity rate from the disease, and thus options that are not even pharmaceutical drug-related, such as ventilators, have shown success in improving survivability by increasing oxygen to the individual's lungs and body. Therefore, drugs do not need to cure COVID-19 specifically, but rather keep the host alive long enough for their own immune system to fight the virus or let the virus pass through the body on it's own natural course. This is similiar to cooling down the body when it has a fever, giving pain medication to deal with secondary pain issues resulting from a disease or surgery, or using ventilators after people suffer serious lung trauma by other means (such as gunshot wounds or car accidents). It is possible to treat the symptoms of a presently incurable disease, such as HIV, to improve survivability of the patient and prevent the spread of the disease to other people without necessarily curing it or fighting the disease directly, even without drugs. 

Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine has proven benefits not only in treating COVID-19, but all viruses. As a general anti-viral drug, it weakens viruses by reducing PH levels in the cell, needed for viral cell replication, and increases zinc absorption by the individual cells, thus allowing the cell to fight off the virus. A simple quote from wikipedia: "Chloroquine has antiviral effects. It increases late endosomal and lysosomal pH, resulting in impaired release of the virus from the endosome or lysosome – release of the virus requires a low pH. The virus is therefore unable to release its genetic material into the cell and replicate. Chloroquine also seems to act as a zinc ionophore, that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase." This general anti-viral capabilities applies to virtually all viruses, including COVID-19, and thus the general anti-viral capabilities are a benefit regardless of it's specific efficacy with COVID-19. Studies specific to COVID-19 are rare and usually involve small sample sizes, but when mixed with various drugs have shown promising results. [1][2][3] "In various studies, the drug has demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may also be useful in the treatment of COVID-19." For the antiviral treatment, the doctors recommended lopinavir 400mg/ritonavir 100mg (Kaletra two tablets, twice a day) or chloroquine 500mg orally per day. Despite a hyperbolic response from the media and politicians to criminalize or punish other politicians for promoting this drug, the drug has been proven to be effective in treating COVID-19 and viruses in general, lending to it's use in treating the virus.[4]

Numerous studies have confirmed General anti-viral abilities. ""Chloroquine exerts direct antiviral effects, inhibiting pH-dependent steps of the replication of several viruses including members of the flaviviruses, retroviruses, and coronaviruses. Its best-studied effects are those against HIV replication, which are being tested in clinical trials. Moreover, chloroquine has immunomodulatory effects, suppressing the production/release of tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin 6, which mediate the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases. We review the available information on the effects of chloroquine on viral infections, raising the question of whether this old drug may experience a revival in the clinical management of viral diseases such as AIDS and severe acute respiratory syndrome, which afflict mankind in the era of globalisation."


Media reverses course on Corona virus, at first downplaying threat, then condemning others for supposedly doing the same thing

While many are prone to panic and hysteria during times of crisis understandably, many in the media have unfortunately lead to more panic given their incredibly hostile and politicized coverage of the crisis. Despite notions that Trump responded late to the Corona virus threat, he mentioned the threat as far back as 2019 in an Executive order trying to develop a vaccine for the disease as soon as it was announced to the world in September, and in the February 4th stated it in the State of the Union Address, and put travel restrictions on China on February 2nd, a move that was panned by numerous Democrat and media figures, referring to it as "Racist" and "Xenophobic". [1][2][3][4] Following this, over 45 countries also put travel restrictions on China, and various democrats, such as Joe Biden [1] (his primary political rival for president), and Nancy Pelosi, relented. The WHO, or world health organization, declared the global crisis a pandemic, on March 11th, 2020 (03/11/2020), long after action to produce ventilators, masks, and other medical equipment, and restricting travel to China (February 2nd) was implemented. [1][2]

Early before the Crisis in 2019, Trump and the Republican Administration had restarted a program to produce ventilators. After implementing the 2013 PAHPA reauthorization, Congress recognized certain federal programs, policies and procedures that needed improvement. The purpose of the 2019 PAHPAI bill was to implement these improvements, which included greater funding, specifically for the ventilator program. [1][2] In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the United States realized that the country was likely to have an epidemic of respiratory disease and would need more ventilators, so it awarded a $6 million contract to Newport Medical Instruments, a small company in California, to make 40,000 ventilators for under $3,000 apiece. In 2011, Newport sent three prototypes to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2012, Covidien, a $12 billion/year medical device manufacturer, which manufactured more expensive competing ventilators, bought Newport for $100 million. Covidien delayed and in 2014 cancelled the contract, citing budget restrictions to the program and low government support as part of their complaint. BARDA started over again with a new company, Philips, and in July 2019, the FDA approved the Philips ventilator, and the government ordered 10,000 ventilators for delivery in mid-2020. [2] As a result of Trump and Republicans renewed interest, as well as many house democrats, for the emergency program, thousands of lives have been saved. Ventilators have been in high demand to help treat corona virus, as the primary cause of death with the disease is a lack of respiration and restriction of breathing, with New York requesting nearly 30,000 respirators. As a result of this program, restarted by Trump and others a mere 6 months before the 2020 pandemic, we have been stocked with respirators, which has doubtless saved countless lives.

Medical supplies have also been sent to various states and countries. New York received 2,200 of the nearly 4,400 ventilators, a much needed respite from the disease. [1][2] Supplies were sent to Michigan despite the Governor's concern, leading to media and political retractions. [3] Trump did not tell states they were on their own, he merely told them to try and get it on their own, despite what the New York times and Daily beast out of context quote implied. "Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment—try getting it yourselves," Trump told the group of governors, according to the Times. "We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Points of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself." The most expensive bill in history, the Corona Virus economic stimulus bill, worth nearly 2 trillion dollars of aid and giving every American at least 1,200 dollars, was blocked repeatedly by Nancy Pelosi and democrats, who in their words saw the relief package as a means to "restructure things to fit our vision", denying the aid Americans desperately needed in the favor of irrelevant concerns, such as climate change. [4]

Trump, many Republicans and Democrats in congress implemented travel bans and restrictions before it was accepted by many in the media and many mainstream democrats, saving lives, in a situation where Democrats likely would have not, given they specifically were against it, before the March 11th pandemic declaration by the WHO, being ahead of the curve by over a month in February 2nd. Trump and various politicians restarted and refunded a program designed to produce ventilators in July of 2019, a full 9 months before the WHO declared the circumstances a pandemic. Trump touted and promoted a number of unproven treatment options for Corona virus, which now have been accepted by many governments, including Italy, South Korea and China, despite calls to punish him as a human rights violator incredulously enough in the hague. Despite all of this, and the media downplaying the crisis, calling Trump a Xenophobe and racist for shutting down travel and trying to help with the crisis, they have now switched tunes, claiming he did not act fast enough. Luckily it is possible to call them out on this merely by pointing out their own statements, but as it has been said many times before, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even put on it's boots. Only time will tell how much this sticks in the minds of those who believed the hype, and fell for the mass hysteria.