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.

Mueller did not say that Trump was immune from prosecution just by being president, he said the opposite

Mueller did not say that Trump was immune from prosecution just by being president, he said the opposite, in fact, it says he explicitly was not found to have committed any crimes at all

Link to the Mueller Report, Quotes:



Page 220: "Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers." [...]""Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Page 2: "We applied the term coordination that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."

Page 220: "Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in Obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

Page 9: "Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."

Page 180: "The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section' 371's offense clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371's defraud clause. "

Page 183: "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA, or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. "

Page 185: "The Office considered whether to charge Trump campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV. A.5, supra. The office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof issues on intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficult of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction."


Page 9: "Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen leaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project."

Page 33-35: "The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump campaign. First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump campaign promoted- typically by linking, retweeting, or similiar methods of reposting- pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States." [...] "The investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals."

Page 69: "Cohen was the only Trump Organization representative to negotiate directly with I.C. Expert or it's agents "

Page 70, proof trump declined to work with the Russian government: "In a second email to Cohen sent the same day, Rtskhiladze provided a translation of the letter, which described the Trump Moscow project as a "symbol of stronger economic, business, and cultural relationships between New York and Moscow and therefore the United States and the Russian Federation. On september 27, 2015, Rtskhiladze sent another email to Cohen, proposing that the Trump organization partner on the Trump Moscow project with "Global development group LLC", which he described as being controlled by Michail Posikhin, a Russian architect, and Simon Nizharadze. Cohen told the Office that he ultimately declined the proposal and instead continued to work with I.C. Expert, the company represented by Felix Sater."

Page 101: "The Mueller report firmly establishes there was no connection between Trump and the Russian government. There are claims made that many of the individuals within the campaign had connections to Russia, but that none were criminal in nature, at all, and not just related to a single specific crime."

Cohen was specifically charged with crimes with lying about the supposed "Moscow Tower" meeting on multiple occasions. Finally, the mueller report does state that the president can be charged with a crime, but says they failed to find enough evidence to do so. It's not that complicated, it's actually pretty cut and dry.



Issues with Mueller Report
The support was not just for Trump, Page 31-32: "For example, the IRA targeted the family of [Redacted], and an umber of black social justice activists while posing as a grassroots group called "Black Matters US".


While it is clear that the Mueller report did not establish ANY criminal connection to the and did not say the president was immune from prosecution so this is why they didn't prosecute, there are things in the Mueller report that seem false or intentionally misleading. The most obvious is the report of Michael Flynn who supposedly lied to the FBI, a charge which has thus far been dropped by the DOJ after it was discovered FBI agents intended to catch him int a perjury trap to get him fired, and make and off-the-books deal for him to confess to a crime he didn't commit in order to save his son from prosecution. This is evidence that was revealed after the Mueller report, and thus was probably believed to be true by Mueller and the authors of the report at the time, despite later proven to be false.

Another similar charge is that the Russian disinformation was clearly designed to help trump and hurt Hillary. However, after the facebook advertisements were revealed to the public, many were shown to be explicitly anti-Trump, including holding rallies to protest Trump, supporting Black-lives-matter, an explicitly Anti-Trump organization, and supporting Hillary by suggesting she would be pro-muslim. As these advertisements were declassified, Of these nearly 4000 emails and advertisements, roughly 100 dealt with either candidate, and they were both positive AND critical of both candidates, far from the argument that the Russians supported Trump over Hillary. In fact, it shows the Russians were most likely just trying to sew chaos. It's clear that only a heavily biased interpretation of this evidence would reveal the group, was was "one-step removed" from the Russian government and not even the Russian government, was deliberately pro-Trump.

Debunking Various Myths about the Middle east wars (condensed)

1. WMD's Were Found in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Nonetheless, in response to a question from committee member Curt Weldon, Col. Chui agreed that the munitions met the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention and yes, sir, they do constitute weapons of mass destruction."" [1][2][3]

2. The oil is going to France and China, and american oil companies would have lost money if foreign competition was opened up, this is a basic law of supply and demand, to not want more competition. So not only did the U.S. not do this, but it wouldn't make logical sense. [1][2][3]

3. Iraq was not horribly destabilized by the U.S. intervention, and the war itself was not started by the U.S.

4. The U.S. did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, Saddam did.

5. Iraq's weapons predominately came from the soviet union. With the ak-47 being the most prolific gun in the world, next to other soviet or soviet-replica weapons such as the PKM, RPG-7, T-72 tank and so on, it should be rather obvious that the U.S. did not arm them or most entities. The cartels, terrorists and most dictatorships all use the Ak-47, with over 100 million in the world.

6. Iraq was Socialist, known as Ba'thist socialist, or literally "Arab National Socialist", or Arab Nazi. Created with the assistance of the Nazi's in the 1940's, the concept of pure Aryan, Persian descedence is still common in the middle east, including Syria and Libya, as is hating the jews.

7. Invasion caused ISIS to form

8. Perhaps the most hilarious argument is the idea that the war somehow was bad for the economy. Despite war historically almost always being good for the economy, and liberals making the dual argument that the war was for money and to make money, they also claim it was simultaneously good at making money but bad for the economy. While one could come up with no less than 1000 forms of mental gymnastics to try and prove this point, the objective reality is that it is false. Two factors must be weighed, initially, the cost of the conflict, and secondly the

9. Despite the notion that drones killed thousands of civilians, their design from the beginning was actually to reduce civilian casualties. Using the smallest plane with the smallest missile that removed as much human error as possible, via an unpiloted aircraft, the Drones have thus far had a civilian death rate of approximately 1% or less, with around 17 civilians killed out of 2000 strikes. While all civilian deaths are bad, it's better to reduce civilian casualties in any conflict, thus making such an endeavor useful. The media's incredibly misleading argument, such as Salon, the Guardian and others who claim 38 high-value targets being killed means the remaining 98% were civilians, is patently absurd, as these represent figures that were merely known about beforehand. By the very argument of these sources, the argument is that the 98% figure "must be" all civilians, despite them simply being those who were not terrorist leaders, merely terrorist subordinates. This disgusting and flagrantly misleading lie has lead many to want to discontinue the drone program, despite objectively saving civilian lives and being less deadly than other alternatives, such as using 3000 pound cruise missiles over 30 pound gryphon missiles which only kill a few people at a time.

10.  Most of the world's dictatorships in the last 100 years were socialist or communist, be them the Nazis who were national socialist, the Communists and so on. Of these, the majority were assisted by the communists, usually in their direct creation, although, the Nazis and Italian fascists formed on their own, despite being allies and starting WWII in 1939 via the invasion of Poland. The U.S.S.R. stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the original party of the Bolsheviks, who would later take over Russia and form the Soviet union, were the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). The communists view themselves as a form of socialism, and believe that true Communism is essentially the spread of global socialism, and thus support socialist movements, as communism is a form of socialism, and view communism as the end state of socialism, eventually leading to global socialism, as compared to national socialism, such as with the Nazis or Italian Fascists. Most of the middle eastern dictatorships, be it Syria, Iraq, Libyia, Iran or others were formed with the direct assistance from Moscow, and the same can be said of most South American dictatorships, be it Venezuela, Argentina and so on. Be it their ideology, weapons, equipment, or primary source of funding, these overwhelmingly were not created by the U.S. Contrary to the idea most of the world's problem stems from the U.S. attempts to stop the communists, the simple reality is it of course, was the communists spreading socialist viewpoints over the world that lead to the rish of these dictatorships. While some will argue about the true nature of them being "socialist" or not, a seemingly always evolving, amorphous concept, the simple fact of the matter is it was promoted by the side of self proclaimed socialists, and they at least shared the same names and resources. It's difficult then to suggest the U.S. created all the problems by the very enemies we have fought for decades. The U.S. fought the rise of communism in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Iran, and so on, as well as socialism in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The central argument that is the basis of the entire anti-war sentiment largely comes from the largely incorrect notion that the U.S. somehow created all of these evil entities, instead of the Soviet Union, who supplied them directly with weapons and funding.

The insane amount of debt Europe is in

The insane amount of debt Europe is in

Luxembourg has nearly 7 million dollars in debt per citizen, which is 6300% of their GDP. The Netherlands has 265,000 dollars in debt per person, at around 522% of their GDP. The UK has 127,000 dollars in debt per person, which is 313% of their GDP. Greece is 240%, Belgium 265%, Switzerland 269%, France 213%, Finland 196%, and so on and so forth. The U.S., which by comparison is in the most debt it's even been in which has been considered a significant problem, has 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. In these EU country's, in seems many are in extraordinary amounts of debt, so much so they can never pay it off. Iceland recently had it's debt forgiven, but it was 11 times it's GDP, and many of these countries never seem to have recovered. This amount of debt is owed to various banks around the world, and as it's in the trillions of dollars, unlike the country of iceland which has 1/1000th the population of the U.S., the debt can't be forgiven without crashing the world market. So eventually, things will get so bad the debt is going to be forced to be repaid, or they will stop loaning to these countries all together, and hyper inflation is effectively inevitable, just like with the germans after WWI.

Not surprisingly a lot of these countries have a high standard of living, but this can't last forever; eventually, someone will expect the debt to be repaid, or hyper inflation will set in, and the economy of these countries will collapse. Whether you like the banks or not, the economy is dependent on them, and thus if they collapse, so does the whole economy so goes people's entire life savings. Europe has been stretched for over a decade now, and only seems to have recovered from the last financial collapse by getting in to insane amounts of debt. If they can't pay it back or it's forgiven, massive economic problems will set in, and Europe will quickly destabilize as the bubble pops. And what then?

I personally believe Europe is headed towards a major financial collapse, which they will blame on a lot of things, but in reality it's just overextending themselves and getting themselves in to insane amounts of debt. I don't think this is sustainable, and even if the economy doesn't collapse and even if hyper inflation doesn't set in, their standard of living will drop when they can't borrow endless amounts of money. Eventually banks will realize that helping the ultra rich get more rich isn't a good idea and will start giving money to countries like in Africa, or those that really need it, and Europe's way of life will be doomed. And what then? I don't see this being talked about by anyone ,but I predict Europe is destined to collapse in the next several years, probably less than a decade. And before someone tries to say there is a difference between public and private debt or you can be in large amounts of debt and pay it off with a growing economy, I know all that. This is external debt specifically, which means what they owe to other entities and not just themselves. This is untenable though, as they either borrow from other programs and eventually watch all their social programs collapse, and thus their standard of living, or their economy will continue to sink and it will be a moot point. For example the average GDP of most European countries has gone down in the last 10 years quite considerably. 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%, which is quite a bit of inflation to have. Countries like Spain, Italy and France have seen a drop in GDP, while the U.S. and various other countries are improving. Except for a slight boost in the last 2 years, the economy of Europe seems to be falling, all the while they are racking up debt they can't possibly pay back, worth several times their entire economies. Something is about to give, and it likely is not going to be pretty for Europe.

The four key problems with solar panels

The four key problems with solar panels



There are four key problems with solar panels, the first being efficiency, the second being labor requirements, the third being price, and the fourth being the variability of the weather. The most obviously problematic of them all, which all sides seem to agree on, is the massive labor requirements. Solar panels require approximately 79 times the labor as coal to function correctly; as solar panels currently only produce 1.32% of our nation's power as of 2016 [2], but utilize 374,000 workers [3], in comparison to fossil fuels like coal and gas at 62% of our electricity and 1.1 million workers, and nuclear power which produces approximately 20% of our power and 120,000 workers. To replace coal, nuclear power and all other forms of electricity you'd need 75 times the amount of solar power generation, and accordingly 374,000 x 75 times the workers, or 28 million people. This would require approximately 10% of our population to work on solar power generation, which is an impossibly high amount of salary costs and labor input to functionally work for our society, and that's before getting in to trying to replace gasoline and other sources of power like natural gas for heating or cooking that is also present, that could easily double this requirement. As electricity only makes up approximately one third of energy consumption, when other forms of energy are considered (gasoline for cars, natural gas for heating etc.), it could possibly take up to 30% of our country becoming solar panel workers to completely replace all energy production with solar panels. It's just not practical to expect people to abandon their jobs and learn how to become a solar worker in these volumes, or pay for it, let alone for something with so little real world benefit, being more expensive and polluting as much.

Fundamentally beyond this, is energy efficiency, as the problem with solar panels being posited as "clean" energy is they're not particularly efficient or clean. Solar panels obviously do not come from thin air, and it's not just a matter of money or cost to create them. It takes an enormous amount of electricity produce solar panels, requiring the electrocution of sand at the right stages in order to turn it in to glass, with the same high energy requirements for producing their batteries. The solar panel industry consumes large amounts of electricity in the aggregate for solar panels to be created, and industry as a whole barely produces more electricity than it creates. Only recently has the industry surpassed the bench mark of producing more energy than it consumes, as of 2014, and this is largely due to superior placement of solar panels (in sunnier areas), and the use of more expensive materials. Regardless, this means that, if we were for instance to burn all the world's coal to create solar panels, we might get slightly more energy out after 30 years than we put in to it, or 10-20% more energy, which wouldn't be enough to justify the cost, labor requirements, weather variability and other problems. If we used nuclear power or another clean source of energy to create solar panels, we would be better off using this clean source of power to power society than dramatically increase the price and labor for a less efficient weather dependent system. This efficiency is set to improve in the future, largely due to better placement of solar panels (I.E. placing them in sunny areas), but nonetheless as a whole it still barely produces more than it consumes. We would first need a source of clean, abundant energy to reliably make solar panels, such as uranium in CANDU reactors, which if we had that, our problems would already be over. The added expense and difficulty of creating solar panels to gain slight bit of extra power during the summer likely is not worth it. Solar panels at their current levels of efficiency also cannot create more of themselves, or are not self-sufficient, as they'd have to produce twice as much as they consumed to be able to do that, that is to have enough power both to run society and make more solar panels, and even at this level it would not compensate for problems like very little sunlight during the winter and lots of sunlight during the summer.
Solar panels also have extreme weather variability issues, such as failing to work when there is little sunlight, like during major storms or other dark periods. When it rains or is foggy for long periods of time, or if there is hail or strong winds which might damage solar panels, solar panels cannot work. Snow, rain, hail, and other such things can disrupt the use of solar panels, as can simple things like winter. During the winter, sunlight is limited, and so the use of solar panels is more limited and ultimately less effective. A solar panel with a high solar efficiency, sufficient to power society at an "average daily solar output rate" on paper, is not enough in reality, as during the winter there would be less sunlight than the "daily average", and thus there is an intrinsic need for more solar panels. So, for a society to be able to use solar panels, they would need to reach a certain minimum to compensate for the winter and other dark periods. During the winter, you might need 2-3 times as many solar panels as you'd need during normal times, and thus would necessitate over twice as many solar panels than one would ordinarily need during an "average" day. As there is no consistent daily solar output, we would need to produce more solar panels than are needed on the "average day", meaning that even if we got to the perfect level of efficiency we needed based on average solar daily levels, we'd actually need more than twice as many solar panels to compensate during the winter. An example of such a problem is in Germany, who when attempting to power an entire city and large volumes of their country with solar panels, found they produced far too little power in the winter, but produced far more than they needed in the summer. [4][5][6] This german city found it almost impossible to power their city on pure solar panels, and found massive power surpluses during the summer and shortages during the winter; even if we wanted to build enough for winter, the amount of solar panels needed would be 3 times or more than what is normally necessary, so solar panels at best can augment existing power systems and not be a total replacement for them.

Batteries, which are needed for solar panels and, also electric cars, largely have their costs come from the price of electricity, so with higher electricity costs comes more expensive electric cars. But solar panels are not cheap regardless. They tend to be far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power, although the price varies given location (places with more sunlight generate more solar power), subsidies, if power storage is present (such as batteries), and the type of solar power generation process. Solar panel prices vary considerably, and information about the real price of solar panels is often diluted because of this; for example, roof installation solar panels cost approximately 253 dollars per mw/h, while the cheapest variant of solar panels cost 49.5 per mw/h, and coal can cost 101.5 dollars per megawatt hour. However, solar panels are often subsidized and are only useful if storage mechanisms are present, therefore being responsible for the low cost of a very specific and particular form of solar power. Cheap solar panels are not protected against hail or other weather problems, and often are not efficient enough to produce more energy than they consume. Even if the cheapest form of solar power is chosen, it still invariably will likely prove to be problematic in some other way. Government subsidies *might* make it cheap enough for your average citizen to uses, but this cost is still paid by society, making the benefit essentially irrelevant, and only conceals the problem. For technology industries that consume high levels of electricity and who's prices are based on electricity prices, such as carbon fiber plants or computer manufacturers, solar would unnecessarily hemorrhage their profits and cause costs to sky rocket for these products. Government subsidies for coal or uranium might pay for relatively small start up costs, but do not pay for their entire operation, where as solar subsidies tend to pay for virtually the entire cost of solar power. Even so it's still proven to be fairly expensive, and this does not solve the problem to society itself; we still end up paying for higher electricity even if it's through a tax increase. Trading paying a company 4000 a year to trading the government 4000 a year does not change the costs requirements. Furthermore, it would be insufficient for large businesses who rely on electricity and consume the majority of our electricity, and bare in mind this massive increase in cost comes with massive labor requirements, variability in bad weather, and an only slightly mild increase in total energy output. In the end, solar panels are not a replacement for a decent clean, cheap energy source, like uranium or thorium. Comparatively, uranium could be as much as 6-8 times cheaper than coal, which would mean a technological revolution in this country allowing us to produce cheap technological goods and probably outsell china, making it the ideal choice.

Most Nuclear costs come from interest paid to banks on loans (70%) and insurance costs, two costs which can be easily eliminated through low interest loans and government provisions for any damage potentially caused by nuclear power. Rather than paying insurance companies enormous amounts of money on the potential of a total nuclear melt down, an event that has never occurred within the U.S., one could simply in the rare event shift the burden on to the government, and have the government provide low or no-interest loans for the start up cost, also ignoring the potential risk associated with nuclear. While the chance of a nuclear melt down is already low with American plants, with no serious melt down in U.S. history (with a few partial melt downs), and a melt down not leading to an explosion like in Chernobyl which was a steam explosion and not a nuclear bomb going off, CANDU reactors are incapable of having a melt down, and the coolant system itself would automatically shut down the chance of a nuclear reaction. Using .7% to 1.2% U235 uranium, the low volume of U-235 uraniumn makes a melt down impossible, as it's close to what is found in nature (which obviously isn't exploding at this moment). CANDU reactors are already 60% of the price of ordinary uranium reactors, so it is possible for the price to drop further. Other than the extremely low carbon emissions, it is also has the potential to be much cheaper and would be necessarily to make solar panels in any case. In short, there are better, more effective power sources available, and solar panels have proven to be hideously inefficient. 

Analysis of the CATO institute study on illegal immigrant crime rates (highly misleading results)

Analysis of the CATO institute study on illegal immigrant crime rates (highly misleading results)

The study on illegal immigrant crime rates per capita by the CATO institute is fairly misleading, as it only uses a portion of the data provided to come to it's conclusions. The study compares incomplete illegal immigrant data to complete native citizen data, which is what produces the discrepancy in crime rates in the figures, and does not prove that native citizens commit more crimes than illegal immigrants. The CATO only focused on 46 homicides by illegal immigrants, instead of the total 162 according to the Texas Department of Public Safety (which the study claims to be based on),  assuming 3.5 times less murders than presented by the evidence, which is clearly what gave rise to the discrepancy in figures and the idea that illegal immigrants commit less crimes. By using incomplete data, they compare a portion of illegal immigrant murders to all native citizen murders, thus making it appear as if illegal immigrants commit less crimes, when in reality they commit more. This blatant misrepresentation of statistical figures is either a deliberate attempt to skew favor in the direction of illegal immigration, or a severe oversight on the part of the CATO institute, an organization with hundreds of researchers and millions of dollars. According to Texas Department of Public Safety and their Illegal alien crime data, the data the CATO institute claims to be based on, there were 1,929 homicide charges and 1,136 homicide convictions of illegal immigrants, between 2011 and 2018, or over a period of seven years, giving an average of 275 charges and 162 convictions of illegal immigrants for murder per year, during this time period. This is obviously far higher than the 46 homicides for illegal immigrants listed in 2015 by the CATO institute, or approximately 3.5 times more than reported by the study. Given the discrepancies in the way the figures are recorded, the immigration status is not often known at the time of arrest by the DHS, which obviously does not have information on all illegal immigrants, who by being here illegally are generally outside of the U.S. system and thus only if arrested previously would this information be known. The institute claims there is a homicide rate of 3.1 per 100,000 citizen for native citizens, while there is 2.6 for illegal immigrants, when based on the idea that illegal immigrants only committed 46 homicides per year. However, when the total figures of all illegal immigrant homicides are recorded and not just by those known to be illegal immigrants prior to their arrests, or a figure of 162 convictions, this results in a real homicide conviction rate of approximately 9.1 per 100,000 citizens for illegal immigrants, in comparison to 3.1 per 100,000 for native citizens, or figures that are about three times higher. It is clear that by using incomplete data they make illegal immigrant homicides look lower than they really are, which is a blatant misrepresentation of the data.

To further expand, the Texas Department of Public Safety presents three figures in it's fact sheet; crimes by illegal immigrants known to be illegal immigrants prior to their arrest, crimes by illegal immigrants determined by illegal immigrants after the fact, and the total amount of crimes committed by all illegal immigrants. In the first set of figures, that is those known to be illegal immigrants before their arrest, only 538 homicide arrests by illegal immigrants are recorded, far less than the 1,929 homicide arrests in the third set of figures which is from all illegal immigrants. This is due to the fact that in the first set of data, only arrests made of illegal immigrants who had prior been fingerprinted and processed by the DHS were included, which obviously only makes up a small percentage of illegal immigrants. "These figures only count individuals who previously had an encounter with DHS that resulted in their fingerprints being entered into the DHS IDENT database. Foreign nationals who enter the country illegally and avoid detection by DHS, but are later arrested by local or state law enforcement for a state offense will not have a DHS response in regard to their lawful status and do not appear in these counts. However, in addition to the PEP program, DHS actively adjudicates the immigration status of individuals incarcerated in the Texas prison system. At this time, more than 26,000 incarcerated individuals have been identified as being in the country illegally, 10,317 of which were not identified through the PEP program at the time of their arrest." As only a small percentage of illegal immigrants were previously known about at the time of their arrest, the figure between who is known to be an illegal immigrant at the time of arrest and who is discovered to be after the fact is naturally going to be much higher. Therefore when going by the third and complete figure which includes all homicides, the figure is far higher than originally presented, thus giving us a real figure that is over 3 times higher than what the CATO institute reports.

For another obvious flaw in the study, it presents itself as a representation for the entire United State's, however it only uses a single year, in a single state, Texas, for the basis of all it's data, which is clearly a small sample in comparison to the overall figures. Another obvious flaw is that it only references a total of 785 homicides, and a mere 46 homicides for illegal immigrants in the year of 2015. This is a continuing trend with the primary problem with the institutes numbers, which is that their figures are incomplete; for example, there were actually 1,317 homicides in 2015 in Texas and not 785, giving a difference of 532 homicides with the CATO institutes figures, or nearly 40% of homicides not recorded. Part of this is due to a difference in federal and state sentencing, with illegal immigrant crime often being handled at the federal level (and other crimes such as drug trafficking), while part of this is due to unsolved crimes lacking a conviction (in part due to the difficulty of tracking murderers and illegal immigrants). It is also the case that exact figures for illegal immigrants are not actually known, giving rise to further discrepancy. While not a fundamental problem to the illegal immigrant data, it's clear that the CATO institute is simply using a small portion of total murders to make it's conclusions, further implicating their data and skewing the math of their figures in their favor.

An analysis for other crimes, other than homicide, is more difficult given the CATO institutes grouping of crimes together differing from the Texas Department of Public Safety. However, for a rough comparison,

7th Floor Group - "Shadow Government", according to FBI

7th Floor Group - "Shadow Government", according to FBI

In the course of the Hillary email investigation by the FBI, a number of startling discoveries were made. On top of rampant corruption and rather candid discussions on politics (the infamous speech about a "public and private face" at a wallstreet conference “But if everybody’s watching all of the back-room discussions and the deals, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”), according to the FBI there was a criminal conspiracy, known as a secret "Shadow organization" operating in the government, attempting to obstruct the Hillary email investigation and release of the emails to the public. (Page 56) [Old link is dead for some reason, so I added an archived link to it] "There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," This is according to the FBI database itself. The term "Shadow Government" in this context is similiar to the term "Shadow Banking", the term shadow of which indicates an organization that trails behind another to opportunistically benefit in it's wake (I.E. being it's shadow, following it around), contrasting perhaps somewhat with a more dramatic, hollywood style interpretation. Nonetheless, the presence of this organization was quite disturbing. The FBI documents expands on how the 7th Floor group, as they called themselves, were trying to influence policy in the government and the investigation in to them specifically but that the FBI managed to thwart it.

"Normally, with larger FOIA requests, such has with the CLINTON-related FOIA request, IPS would schedule a rolling release---that meant every weeks or month, the properly reviewed and approved material would be made public. However [Name redacted], and the 7th floor group argued that the release should be all at once in January 2016, for coordination purposes. While IPS official did not have control of the release process of the 296 emails related to the house select committee on Benghazi's request, they did have control for the release process for the approximately 30,000 emails, or 52,455 pages related to the CLINTON FOIA request, and it was decided to be a rolling release." This is subtle, but the implications are important. Basically, they wanted to release the information all at once, which would unnecessarily rush the investigators. The problem is that reviewing emails take time, and forcing a rushed release would prevent newly discovered emails from being released in the future, which means that if they found something new, it wouldn't be viable for prosecution or public release. The FBI could either delay the release by several years to make sure FBI officials got it right all at once (giving the Clintons time to bury the story in the media or wait until after the election was over), or not allow them to release future information if it cropped up. A rather sly tactic, sort of like rushing a trial before the investigation can be completed, and then not being able to prosecute the individual a second time even if new information pops up (as you cannot be tried for the same crime twice). Due to double jeopardy, that is being tried for the same crime twice being illegal, one only needs to avoid any problems immediately in a trial to avoid being sentenced, even if new evidence of guilt surfaces later. This was particularly true in the Jeffery Epstein case who, while ruled guilty of solicitation of an under-aged prostitute and sentenced to 21 months, avoided the heavier charges of running an underage sex ring himself, something the judge who ruled on the case commented on said he would have convicted had the trial not been rushed and the evidence was provided sooner. 

The 7th floor organization has been accused of obstructing justice, multiple times, and several of it's members have rather strange connections to different social media groups or government departments, like snapchat (Jennifer Stout), or the justice department with Cheryll Mills who oversaw the prosecution of Hillary and simply "chose not to prosecut"e, interestingly enough being paid 198,000 dollars by the Clintons and receiving immunity after this was exposed. "She worked for no pay in those first months at the State Department, and was officially designated as a "temporary expert-consultant", which allowed her to continue receiving outside income while serving as Clinton's Chief of Staff. On her financial disclosure forms, she reported $198,000 in income from NYU in 2009, during the period her university work overlapped with her time at the State Department, and that she collected an additional $330,000 in vacation and severance payments when she left the university’s payroll in May 2009. Additionally, Mills remained on the Clinton Foundation’s unpaid board for a short time after joining the State Department." So the chief prosecutor botched the trial, was paid off by the Clintons, and given immunity when all this was revealed; obviously seems like the "legitimate" work of the justice department at play. This was along with 5 other clinton aide's, who also received immunity. Nearly half of the emails, or nearly 33,000 that were supposed to be given to the FBI were deleted, 3 weeks after it was requested, and their phones were acid washed with a computer program designed to delete the evidence (a colloquial term, not literal) and destroyed with hammers (actually literally true). Yes, destroying evidence *is illegal*, but good thing they got immunity for it, right? And on top of this, they would not allow the FBI access to the email server supposedly hacked by the Russians [1][2], giving them the ability to spin any story they want. 


Members of the 7th floor group included Patrick Kennedy (congressmen and cousin to John F. Kennedy), John Kerry (congressmen and runner-up to George Bush in the 2004 presidential election), Jonathen Finer (Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State), Heather Higginbottom ( United States Secretary of State after John kerry, now leader of charity CARE), Julia Friefield (Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs), Roberta. S. Jacobson (diplomat and assistant secretary of state), and Juliassa Reynoso (lawyer, diplomat). Other notable members include Jennifer Stout (now leader of the snapchat global public policy), Cheryll Mills (given partial immunity in the hillary email case, essentially the fall-girl who got immunity, like when Bill Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal in the whitewater scandal), and Huma Aberdeen, wife of known sexual abuser AnthonyWiener and the individual who ran the Clinton email account. Bizarrely these people seem connected to large social media companies, including snapchat (a convenient way to gather data on people) and Facebook, which is worrisome to say the least. Jacob Sullivan was an individual responsible for up to 1/3 of the classified messages released by September 2015. John Finer, Patrick Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry were all presidential candidates who felt maligned about their own failed presidential runs, and therefore wanted to secure things behind the scenes to ensure they won they presidency next time. In the emails they often talk candidly about perceived corruption with the other democrats and Republicans, and thus justified their own actions somewhat ironically in the belief that everyone else was corrupt. 

The behavior and convenient timing of immunity deals is a common thread in the Clinton connected empire. Clinton's have a long history of pardoning or granting immunity to people that cover for them, with Bill Clinton pardoning of commuting the sentences of several hundred people on his literal last day in office. Examples include convicted pedophile and Democrat Congressmen Mel Reynolds, who was the bank for the money laundering scandal the democrats faced while Bill Clinton was in office. Mel Reynolds was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of violent sexual assault of a child, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. His sentence was commuted on the bank fraud charge and he was allowed to serve the final months under the auspices of a halfway house. Reynolds had served his entire sentence on child sex abuse charges before the commutation of the later convictions. Another individual, Marc Rich, a fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution, was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, was pardoned of tax evasion. He was required to pay a $1 million fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Eisenberg Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) of oil. On his last day in office, Bill Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of several hundred other people, including Puerto Rican terrorists and fellow congressmen, and in particular a large number of human and cocaine smugglers. From Cheryill mills to Huma aberdeen, pardons, immunity, or simply not investigating crimes has been the MO to avoid serious jail time, for people connected to their organization. When they "chose not to prosecute" Clinton despite the actions technically being a crime, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. With this kind of access to the state department and justice department, you could get off for almost anything. Including 12 counts of sexual assault on a minor, apparently.

While corruption in politics is not new per se, the depth of corruption, and connection human traffickers, smugglers, rapists, and the judges and lawyers that were supposed to be prosecuting them raises a lot of eyebrows. The damage is not just getting away with the email leaks, but rather their involvement when everyone up to and including rapists, terrorists, smugglers, and numerous cases of fraud. The emails also revealed connections to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China, who donated millions of dollars to their clinton foundation network, and by proxy their campaign. China also received advanced missile technology information, given to them by none other than Bill Clinton. Harvey weinstein was a big donor to both Obama and Clinton, and is now enthralled in a massive sexual abuse scandal, along with Kevin Spacey, and now NXIVM, the sex cult which targeted insecure woman as a part of a "self-help" group and used celebrities to get people's attention, and then forced them in to horrific acts of sexual torture, including branding them with a hot poker for hours. [1][2] NXIVM had access to the emails of many individuals including the Clinton's, and donated large amounts of money to clinton associates, in a part of just another weird, Democrat-connected hollywood sex cult. The media's impact on politics is probably larger than politicians themselves, and thus control over the media, such as snapchat, facebook and other entities is more than a little disturbing. The media's connection to these same foreign powers, such as China, Qatar and others (such as the Young Turks through Al-Jazeera (being an intelligence organization of Qatar), or CNN and China), only deepends the problem further. With a mere 7% of the media being Republican, and the majority being in favor of Democrats and the left, there is a reason much of this information is not widely known by the public.