The Underlying Cause of the Immigrant Crisis: Attempted Election Rigging

What are we to do with the many millions of people who poured over the border during the Biden Administration, while the Biden Administration denied that it was happening and then denied that it could do anything to stop the flow of unvetted people over American borders?

I know this is a complex issue at this point, but it has been more and more clear to me that this movement of migrants across our borders was orchestrated by the Biden Administration for the purpose of electing Democrats in swing states. What to do with millions of people who are illegally here now? Especially given the negative impact mass unvetted immigration has had on many parts of the US, including increased crime. It's a big mess, but it's important to understand what happened and why. Joe Rogan sums it up well when discussing the possibility that Kamala Harris might run for president in 2028:

I'll ask [Harris] controversial things, man. It's all I have to do is ask you, Why [was] the border open?" We can talk about that for three hours. Oh my gosh. What are you trying to do? Right? You could close that border. Trump closed that border in a day. Amazing. In a day. You could say I hate what's going on with ice, and I don't like it either. I don't like this thing of like taking people.

And here's the thing, well, they should have done it the right way. But if you're poor and you live in a third world country, that's not an available option. Okay? What is an available option is this one administration over four years was encouraging people to go through, not only encouraging you to go through. There's Red Cross stops along the way. They give you maps. They tell you how to do it. People are being, they're funding people getting in. They're paying for air flights. They're flying people in. They're moving people into swing states. They're getting them on Medicare. They're getting them on Social Security.

We talked about this one lady who did an interview. She was being told to try to get people on permanent disability. So she was told to ask them, "Do you have back problems?" They're like, yes, okay, great, personal disability. Now that she she said I was told to view them as a client now, And so you're trying, essentially to bribe people to Now, once you get them in to move to swing state. Then they count on the census. Once they count on the census, it adds congressional seats. So it's like you're rigging elections by bringing in immigrants, and then you're giving them money.

And all these people that live in these poor communities, they're like, "Hey, where was all this money for us? Where was all this money for the people in Chicago? In Chicago? Where was all this money the people in Baltimore?" No, no, they're doing it because they're trying to manipulate the election. It didn't work. You know, it didn't work. Like, I got into an argument someone about it. But, yeah, it didn't work, though. I go, Yeah, but they tried to do it. It didn't work.

But they did move people to swing states. They did leave the border open for four years. They did let in millions of people. They don't even know how many. They don't know how many people got through. That's crazy. Once they got them here, they did give them EBT cards. They did give them cell phones. They did. They moved them into the fucking hotel, that Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, this luxury hotel filled with migrants. They paid for their food. They did do this. They encouraged people. They did have sanctuary cities where they weren't going to arrest them. They let them come in.

Every bit of the above is easily substantiated by searching first hand accounts on X. Almost none of it can be found in corporate media outlets. Therefore, there's no way to discuss it civilly with people "across the aisle" since, factually speaking, we come from two almost non-overlapping informational ecosystems.

Continue ReadingThe Underlying Cause of the Immigrant Crisis: Attempted Election Rigging

Julian Assange Discusses Trump and Russia; Hillary Clinton and Russia

Julian Assange has proven himself highly principled and courageous. He has broken more meaningful stories in the past 20 years than all corporate media combined. in this video he discusses his findings regarding Donald Trump and Russia, as well as Hillary Clinton and Russia.

As summarized by RealRobert:

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accepted a $3 million bribe from the Kremlin. Simultaneously, her top advisor and campaign chairman, Pizzaman John Podesta, received a $35 million bribe through Rusnano—a company widely known as “Putin’s Child.”

The price? Control over twenty percent of the United States’ uranium supply, surrendered to foreign interests.

Uranium—the critical element for nuclear weapons.

The cost? Treason at the highest level.

Continue ReadingJulian Assange Discusses Trump and Russia; Hillary Clinton and Russia

The Sorry State of Scientific Literature

It is surreal to read these quotes about the unreliability of science publications by people in a good position to evaluate this dysfunction.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.”

-Richard Horton, former Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet (the world’s premier medical journal) [

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, wrote this statement in a comment titled "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" published in the journal on April 11, 2015.]

--

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2006)

John P. A. Ioannidis

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

--

Karl Kanthak posts this:

“Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong.”

--

Post by InsiderHCW:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion.
- Marcia Angell, Editor, New England Journal of Medicine. [Marcia Angell wrote this statement in her article "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption," published in The New York Review of Books on January 15, 2009].

--

So how do we know who to trust, in science, media, politics, or anywhere else that people claim that they are experts and that we need to trust them? It makes one almost this cynical . . .

Continue ReadingThe Sorry State of Scientific Literature

Bret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

I regularly follow biologist Bret Weinstein (and his wife, biologist Heather Heying) on their Darkhorse Podcast. Here's Bret on Piers Morgan's show warning that the aluminum adjuvants used in most of our vaccines have not been safety tested. Very concerning.

Camus on X offers this summary:

The Unsettling Scientific Silence on Aluminum Adjuvants

A powerful point from Bret Weinstein highlights a critical failure in our public health dialogue: the refusal to properly study the systemic effects of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines.

The core of his argument is not anti-vaccine; it is pro-science. He states that if injecting aluminum into muscle is safe, that is "a scientifically easy thing to establish." The fact that this foundational work remains conspicuously undone is a glaring red flag.

So, what is an adjuvant? For the public, it's an additive designed to put the immune system on "high alert" so it reacts strongly to the vaccine's target antigen.

But therein lies the potential danger. The alarm sounded by the aluminum is non-specific. The immune system knows it's under threat, but it doesn't know from what. This is a radical biological intervention.

Weinstein, as an evolutionary biologist, posits a crucial question: Is this chronic, misdirected immune activation connected to the epidemic of modern ailments we see in younger generations?

Could it be a driver of the proliferating allergies? Is it a factor in the rise of serious, sometimes fatal, autoimmune conditions like asthma?

We simply do not know. These questions have not been properly investigated.

The conclusion is inescapable: even if a vaccine is beneficial for the specific disease it targets, the net impact on a person's lifelong health could very well be negative. We are making a massive, population-scale bet without the necessary data.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a demand for rigorous, transparent science to answer a question that has been ignored for far too long.

Continue ReadingBret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

Our Dependence on Petroleum-Based Fuel

How many gallons does of petroleum based products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and many other uses) does the entire world use every second?

First of all, I asked Grok (follow this link for a deeper dive):

Global oil demand (including both fuel and non-fuel uses) is currently around 104.6 million barrels per day.

Approximately 84% of this demand is for fuel uses (energy consumption), while the remaining 16% is for non-energy purposes like petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, and asphalt. This ratio is derived from comparing IEA's reported energy consumption from oil (193 EJ in 2024, equivalent to ~86.4 million barrels per day) against total oil demand (102.8 million barrels per day in 2024), and scaling proportionally to current levels.

Fuel demand = 104.6 million barrels/day × 0.84 ≈ 87.9 million barrels/day. Convert to gallons per day: 87.9 million barrels/day × 42 gallons/barrel ≈ 3.69 billion gallons/day.

Convert to gallons per second: 3.69 billion gallons/day ÷ 86,400 seconds/day ≈ 42,732 gallons/second.

Next, I'll leave you with this shocking visual that pertains to the oil produced only by Kuwait every second:

I'm reminded of a comment made to me by an engineer who worked in the field of petroleum. He said it is perhaps the greatest achievement of human beings to be able to extract as much petroleum for use by human beings at such a moderate cost per gallon.

I'm also reminded of the many people who claim that we can replace all of this oil usage with wind and solar. I am skeptical of that claim when I read of the immense volume of oil we use.

Continue ReadingOur Dependence on Petroleum-Based Fuel