Sir Gene Speaks

0058 Sir Gene Speaks - Midterm Election Warning

August 25, 2021 Gene Naftulyev Season 1 Episode 58
Sir Gene Speaks
0058 Sir Gene Speaks - Midterm Election Warning
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

I recommend listening at 1.25X

Story Images and Links are only visible to Podcasting 2.0 Apps - see all the latest APPS for Podcasting 2.0f

Weekend Gaming Livestream atlasrandgaming onTwitch
StarCitizen referral code STAR-YJD6-DKF2
Elite Dangerous

Podcast recorded on Descript and hosted on BuzzSprout 

Donate via Bitcoin or Lightening or

Move to the same Podcast Host I use!
Get some credit on Buzzsprout! $20 Amazon Gift Card

Support the show

I've got a couple of topics to talk about today, but to start things off, I guess the first one is let's talk about the upcoming mandates for COVID that are going to be happening in schools. Now some school districts I'm sure will do nothing but most school districts, at least that's what it's looking like are going to at a bare minimum, impose a masculinity. For children that statistically have virtually no chance of kitchen covered. And even more importantly, if they catch COVID, they have the mildest cases of But the important part here is that teachers unions are getting pressure, presumably from the teachers themselves, or at least a few of the teachers who are worried about catching COVID from their students. Now catching a disease while working, surrounded in a place surrounded by. I think is not unusual. In fact, I would say part of the decision-making process for anybody that goes into a profession where you're going to be surrounded by children should be, am I okay with being surrounded by all these Petri dishes that are going to have measles that are going to have every instance of the cold, the flu, and every other communicable disease out there, because children tend to catch these. Even if they're not necessarily the there's a, if not necessarily, there's a huge risk to the children themselves. They are certainly great at spreading diseases. So one would presume that somebody going into a field where they really surrounded by children has the same the same risk considerations as somebody going into the medical field, where you're going to be surrounded by sick. I personally could not do either job. And I think I've been on the record saying that I'm not a huge germaphobe, but I'm enough of a germaphobe that given the choice, I'd rather not step into a hospital or into an elementary school. Those are places where you're much more likely to actually catch something, even if it's just the common cold, and then it's going to work its way out of your system fairly. So what's happening now is really the people that have again, presumably understood the risks that are involved with teaching are pushing back and saying no, I really would like to teach in a completely safe environment. And if I can't do it remotely, because a lot of teachers are saying that the experiment to teach remotely completely failed last year, it's hard enough trying to get children to pay attention to you when they're 10 feet. It is impossible to get children to pay attention to you when there's a computer in between you and them, because their minds wander and their focus wanders. And there's a lot of temptation when they're on the computer and away from the actual educational environment. Now, if it's happens to be a subject, the kid really likes, of course, that could be a very different story, but for something where, a kid isn't particularly interested in it, which would be math for most of them. Or maybe history for some students these topics, they will ignore and ignore them a lot more than they would if they were physically in class. And so the compromise is on masks, which is so retarded. And I use that term correctly because it is effectively taking something that is symbolic and has no actual practical statistical preventative application. And again, we know this and the reason I can say that it doesn't have, it is because there were tests performed on the masks that are being used, everything shy of an N 95 and even including then 95 to some degree, to some extent, but certainly everything less than 95 does not prevent the spread of viruses. It prevents the spread of mucus that comes out of your nose. It prevents. From flying out of a doctor's mouth onto a patient. These are all good things. I'm not saying that there's no point in masks whatsoever and masks serve a very specific purpose. But what I am saying is the purpose they serve and the purpose they were designed for. And the purpose that they've been tested again is not to prevent virus, transmission. There's nobody working in a viral pathology lab or like the lab UConn that simply where. A cotton mask or a mask of less than an 85. And for that matter, if they're actually working with viruses day to day, they're likely wearing masks that have a much higher preventative capacity. And then 95, they were working in the positive airflow environment, positive pressure environment to where direction is only going from them to. The actual viral enclosure so that there is no possibility of any air born viruses leaking back out towards them. Usually people are double gloved. They have the highest capability masks. And for depending on the type of virus, of course if you're working with Ebola study or something like that, which is extremely lethal or can be, then people are going to be a worrying and full hazmat suit as well. So teachers insisting that children wear masks is just stupid. And parents ought to be calling out school boards on that because letting the teacher's union run the school instead of the school board is how you end up with indoctrinated kids that are more concerned about gender fluidity. The fact that all white people are guilty of everything. And that mask somehow shows that you care about your teacher. It used to be, you bring an apple to class to show that you care about your teacher, but these days, apparently you bring a mask to class to show that you care about your teacher. Now, if a teacher is truly worried, is there anything they can do and still perform their job? Absolutely. But they don't want to do it. And I'll tell you what that is. They can wear an N 95 man. Or one of the, even the higher level anti viral myths that are out there now, the supply has become more available. There was certainly an excuse that somebody couldn't get their hands on these types of masks 18 months ago, that excuse is completely gone. You go on Amazon and buy anything you want. Certainly as a school board, they can buy masks for their teachers for the whole district or perhaps as a school, the principal has a budget that they can utilize. So by these maths or even the teachers themselves, we're not talking super expensive, even for, and the five are high quality man. We're still looking at maybe a buck, 50 mask Ray around there. Now they are disposable. They should be disposed of on a daily basis, but here's the thing, anyone who isn't wearing at least, and then 95 mask and is demanding that somebody else wear a mask is both a moron and a hypocrite. And they are those things because. If they actually cared about preventing viral transmission to themselves or from themselves, they would be wearing an N 95 mask. And the fact that they're not wearing that mask means they don't really care whether they transmit viruses or whether they breathe in viruses. That's not the point. The point is compliance. It's not actual science. So if you follow the science, these people are both morons and. And the reason that they want you to wear a mask again, has nothing to do with, because if they were, let's say they were just purely selfish and their attitude was well, I don't really, you want to wear a mask, but I want everybody else in the world wearing a mask to prevent me from getting anything. While there, again, there should be a requirement on masks that might have an actual chance of preventing viral transmission. Now, before I get too far, the reason I say that masks. Of a lesser quality or it's not even a quality issue, it's really an issue of the size of the membranes. The filtering the mask provides don't work on viruses and it's because there were studies performed including one at the university of Minnesota prior to COVID. And I'm very clear on this, that if you want to actually look at unbiased research that hasn't been politically motivated by COVID. Research that was performed with no reason to promote one type of mask versus another. What you find is that surprisingly or maybe completely unsurprisingly G masks, do what they're designed to do a surgical masks that you will get for free. If you go to your doctor or if you go to the airport or whatever, the little blue ones that you see, a lot of people wearing, at least they're disposable, but they completely did not prevent you from either inhaling or. Any kind of viral material. If you have a cold and you wear one of those masks, you will pass the coal down to her, everybody else around you and the cold virus, flu virus, all those viruses, if they can get passed on. So can COVID and so wearing any masks that are designed to prevent viral transmission doesn't work. It's just not there now. There've been some studies put out post COVID that would suggest there's a higher likelihood that you're not going to pass something out. And if you wear any kind of mask these are politically purchased bullshit studies and the do not pass actual scientific muster. Get the actual studies, do your own research. And you'll see that in the fine print. The people even doing the studies have to have to provide a a CYA, cover your ass for them. By saying that this is preliminary data, or we need to do further studying, they're basically being paid to lie and they know it and they want to minimize the lie in the fine print as much as possible. But the headline is still their headline masks work study shows reality, read the study masks shown to be effective against things that are not viruses. There is however a some potential for reducing the viral transmission of maths. Even if they have no actual design to be preventative of viruses more research has to be done. So essentially this type of text will be in the fine print in the subtext of the study. But the only thing that you hear, the only thing that you. Idiots like the CEO of a United that is band-aiding maths, we're all employees. And for a great reason, he just said I just, I'm tired of seeing my service, not showing up to work because they're dead. And so I'm just going to pull a number out of my ass if you're not vaccinated, if you're not wearing a mask you're 300 times more likely to. So therefore we're requiring everybody to get a vaccination. And of course, everybody still has to wear a mask, even if they're whack, vaccinated and go riddle me. That one. That is another completely anti-scientific requirement that the religion of the COVID followers seems to adhere to the whole point of getting a vaccination is that you can neither get infected nor spread the infect. If you can not get the infection, if you can not spread the infection, then what's the point of the mask. This is literally the same thing as as getting a vasectomy or let's even go further as having your testicles physically removed from your body, but then still requiring or your partner is still requiring you to wear a condom when you have sex. And he's you cannot. Impregnate somebody, if there is no production of sperm happening in your body. So what would be the point of wearing a condom? Of course there are other reasons, right? It's not transmit viral infections, maybe wearing a condom might prevent the spread of COVID. Oh boy. But the explanations that you keep hearing is that effectively, even though you don't have balls, you still have to wear a condom. If you want to have. Even if you've had the multiple shots and even the booster shot, you still have to wear a mask because you never know, you might still transmit COVID. So either somebody knows the shots don't actually work and that there is no real reduction in the possibility of either getting or transmitting COVID or the shots do work. But they don't understand how science works. And therefore, think that wearing the mask is somehow the ultimate badge of protection. Whereas getting the shot doesn't do a whole lot, I guess maybe they're saying it lessens the symptoms. What a load of bullshit, if that's all that happened that the symptoms were lowered, I think there'd be a lot more pushback. Imagine if the polio vaccine came. And the net effect of polio vaccine was like you can still get polio, but you'll have milder symptoms. Instead of being a iron lung for the rest of your life, maybe you have to only do it for a couple of years. Now, if you actually get polio with no vaccine, you'd probably be in the hospital for a couple of years. Well, it's the same thing. What's the point of getting a vaccine at the vaccines is not actually preventing you from your body. So coming to the disease, there is no point in getting the vaccine. And this was the only reason that vaccines have to be mandated. And by half do I mean from the corporate standpoint, from the, how the fuck do we make money standpoint from the, how do we keep control of our people standpoint that the government has? If you don't mandate the vaccine, it's pretty clear at this point that people would just stop getting vaccinated because they either realize that. The vaccines don't work or they're vaccine suspicious or whatever the term is. They basically think I don't know what the hell that stuff is. I don't want to be a Guinea pig. It's not approved. Although now one of them has been approved again, it's in a completely charged political climate. Really? Is that approval of worth anything? How many years did it take for any kind of pass vaccines to get approved? Like for actual diseases where the vaccine actually prevents you from getting the disease? Decades. It didn't happen overnight. And it didn't take decades because these companies were incapable of making vaccines are incapable of doing studies it's because there was a requirement to have a long-term study done that shows a net positive effect. There have absolutely been drugs in the U S market and other markets like the little mite, which have had long standing repercussions. Thalidomides in case you haven't heard of, it was a drug that was very popular in Europe, less so in the U S but still available that was prescribed to pregnant women to minimize the their stress, I guess it was essentially a take the anxiety away from mothers to be so a drug that was effectively trying to fix that. Mood or comfort level of pregnant women who are flushed with all kinds of, hormones and essentially their body is going through massive changes compared to their normal state. So there should be some expectation of both discomfort and mood swings that happen and taking a drug like thalidomide was supposed to just merely act on the mental discomfort of the woman. The net result was that you had children that were born with a birth defect and the birth defects in particular were where the limbs failed to grow. And so you have a full-sized body, full-size normal size arms and legs, but one of the arms, or maybe one of the hands, but what I've seen is actual arms is literally the size of a fetus arm. It is like an inch long. That is on a full-sized human body because whatever throwing of my did then interacted with the growth of the embryo prevented the, whatever the normal processes are that kick in from the embryo developing up until adulthood that actually promote physical growth. So we're born small. We physically grow until we get to a certain size, typically around 17, 18, 19 years old. And then for all practical purposes, we stopped physically growing. And now mentally there's a long time to grow beyond 18, 19, but physically for most people. Anyway, that's when physical growth stops. So thalidomide just short circuit of the process selectively so that certain parts of the body just never grew up. Now not to say that every drug in and certainly then every vaccine is going to have that drastic a consequence. But we don't know because we haven't done the long-term studies and especially for an MRI and a vaccine, which is a new technology. Now it's also something that the creator of MRNs said should never be used much for this type of vaccine, much like the creator of the PCR tests. The PCR test should never be used for COVID as well. He didn't say for COVID cause COVID was around, but he was saying that it is being misapplied and it was not intended for the use that it's being currently a use for. And certainly the, that the more repetitions you do, the lower, the counts fence level of any kind of positive result. You do that for repetitions and you can literally find DNA segments for things that don't. So getting back to the the vaccine and the question of schools and the requirements, I think it's a great opportunity and it's a big push from the school boards toward the parents to take back the education of their children. And by that, homeschooling, now I understand that in America, certainly, and in most other countries, we are at a dual person workforce. Which is sad because I remember where in this country, most families still had just one parent working and one parent at home. And in the I'm referring to the 1970s here and previously to that. But specifically I remember the 1970s. And at that time you had a majority of stay at home moms and working dads and also a majority of two parent households. That is certainly not the case. I think right now the single parent household is the majority. And for households that have two parents, both parents work full-time jobs. This is a topic for another episode because I do want to cover something like this. I've had these conversations with friends for many years. If you actually calculate inflation, you calculate the cost of goods. What you feel fine is that women going into the workforce? As a whole group, not individual women, but as a whole group has nearly doubled, not quite, but nearly doubled the amount of Americans who are employed in jobs, but the buying power of a, the household of a two person, family with a kid or two has actually gone down. But let's say let's be very optimistic and let's look at the best case scenario and the best case. It has stayed exactly the same. So in 1975, somebody working at Ford or GM or IBM or 3m or any of the initial letter companies within the United States working one job they're earning 25, $30,000 was making enough money to feed a family of four, to buy a house in the suburbs. And to have one car and almost always even two cars, if it was a somebody working and living in the suburbs, because you can't just take your car to work. And then your wife is at home with no car. So on a salary of $30,000 or less. So the 1970s, it, all it took was for one person to work. See, I told you, I need another episode on this, but let me just finish up the point today. You cannot do that. You need two people working. Or you need one extremely high salary with a, in the six-figure range to be able to provide even the bare necessities for a family of four. So I'll talk about on a future episode, but let's just wrap up with that. On that particular topic, schools are pushing people towards doing, So I apologize for the gloom and doom here, but I just wanted to provide my perspective and to encourage people to not stop pushing back. There is this feeling of oh, look at all this great news coming out. And all these liberal politicians are getting pushed out of office and isn't it. Great people are finally realizing truth. Well, truth doesn't matter. The way that the liberals do elections these days, isn't about truth. And it's not about an even playing field and it's not about ethics. It's about victory at any cost necessary. And when you're fighting somebody who uses that as their motto you're basically fighting against Afghan rebels, working against invader in their country, whether that is a Russian invader or an American. They are fighting at any cost to get their country back for themselves. And they've done that now with three of the largest superpowers in the world, they've done it to the British than they did it to the Russians. And now they've done it to the United States. And then with that, I'm going to end this episode. Homeschooling. And I think that may not be a bad thing. And given that most parents in to parents, families work, and certainly the one parent and one parent families works. How do you do homeschooling? I've never done homeschooling, but I have friends that have homeschooled their kids. And it seems like there is this intermediate thing that exists between. Homeschooling in your own home with just your kids and an actual school. And that is to essentially have groups of parents who are registered in the I'm homeschooling my kids program, whatever that takes, whatever bullshit you need to sign off with the government that allows you to teach your own kids, instead of sending them to a government in action nation school. And I'm saying that only half jokingly, because anybody that actually went to public school, if you're on it, You know exactly which teachers with good teachers and which teachers were just there to sell you a bunch of crap. They were there to tell you a particular story about the way that politics works. This happens in elementary, this happens in junior high school, probably more so in junior high. And it certainly happens in high school. And I'm not even talking about college. That's a whole separate ball of wax, but in all these places, even for the last 30, 40 years, Teachers have had agendas beyond simply teaching the subject or topic that they were teaching. Generally the science teachers, the math teachers tended to be less into having an agenda. And maybe that's why they ended up teaching those classes. Certainly. I don't, what was it called? I don't remember the actual name. I think it was shop auto shop. Those guys didn't have a whole lot of agenda other than they like cars and they like working on cars, but teachers in the social sciences very often, not every time, but very often had agendas. With that in mind, with the big push towards children being required to do something absurd, like wear masks, switch, don't worry. In order to make teachers who aren't willing to actually wear an N 95 mask the whole day themselves feel better about themselves. It's a great reason to take your kids out of school. It's a great reason to do some research, to find out what exists in your neighborhood, what exists with other families, looking to do the same thing. And then maybe you just pay a little bit of money to one of the parents who then teaches your kids, their kids, a few other kids and neighbors. And you're bypassing the school indoctrination establishment, and you're actually giving a real education to your kid. And maybe you guys trade off so that the one parent teaches fourth grade different parent teaches fifth grade, whatever it is, point is it's worth looking into it's worth investigating. And I think that all the stupidity that is coming out of the school districts, right. Is going to mostly do that. That's going to push people into investigating homeschooling who have never really looked at homeschooling seriously because they don't want their kids, not just to be suffering through the bullshit that's coming down the pipeline, but to be subject to this new normal, where you have to wear a panty over your mouth and nose in order to fit in. And that's literally all it is. You're wearing a panty over your face in order to fit in with what the ruling class wants you to look like. There is no actual, real scientific benefit to doing that. It's purely a cultural phenomenon. So that was topic. Number one. I know we've gone on for probably longer than that. I was planning on talking about topic. Number one, topic. Number two was really. The upcoming elections, the as we're getting closer to midterms, there does seem to be a lot of excitement and a wave of conservative thinking, or at least anti-liberal thinking that seems to be happening on all fronts of the country. Biden has been a gift through conservatives. He has managed to put his foot in his mouth, put his foot into every orifice in. And to come across as exactly the thing that many people Trump included have compared him to, which is a senile old man who deserves to be in a nursing home, not the guy with his fingers on the nuclear button. He literally could be launching nukes right now because he doesn't really understand what he's doing. He's got spittle dribbling out of his mind. It is very dangerous. And in fact, they knew this was the case, the people that put them in power because, and by those people, the democratic party because of the vice-president that came along with him, they knew that if you wanted to have somebody that would be in office without money, pressure of getting removed through office, you need to make the alternative, even though. So, do you have a senile old man or do you have Kamala Harris? And I think for anybody that's actually looked into their politics. Kamala Harris is a worst choice than the senile old man. And it's sad. It's a sad statement to make, but you literally, and then who's in third place. Nancy Pelosi. So the, so our chain of leadership is a senile old man. A woman that doesn't know politics, but really knows how to screw her way to the top. And then the third place is a see now woman. So this is the the governing top of the pyramid that we currently have our pyramid seeming to look a lot more like the British Royal family every day. The only thing they're missing is I'm not sure that our politicians take off their people's skins every night so that their lizard skins can take a breather while they're sleeping. Whereas I don't think that Biden does that, but I'm pretty sure the queen of England does that every night. I'm kidding. I love reptiles. I have reptiles and I would not, other than through kidding, ever compare it. A really cool animal or a whole class, a full Janus of animals to the British monarchy. W we certainly know who ranks lower than that comparison. They at least in my mind. So, with this complete gift that Biden has been to the conservatives for showing how inept. I think there's a temptation to be lulled into a sense of oh thank God. Now everybody knows he's a moron. And people that voted from realized that they shouldn't have voted for him. And at the next midterms, we're going to have a huge sweep of victories for Republicans across the board. No, we're not. And I'll tell you why. And again, it has to do with the new normal and the new normal was created during the last election. And the new normal is that the Democrats, the party of the elites is absolutely willing to do whatever it takes. They've said so themselves there've been articles written about them by other liberals talking about how great a job they did at winning through any means necessary and winning through any means necessary is exactly right. It means lying, cheating, and backstabbing. It means doing whatever it takes. It's the Frank Underwood approach to liberal politics. It is essentially getting votes and getting getting elected, even if you don't have votes. And I think a lot of Republicans who right now might be optimistic about the midterms are going to be very disappointed because what they're going to see, isn't a huge Republican waves. We being crossed the county. They're going to see is a wave of an increase in Democrats. Democrats will gain seats in the house. Democrats are, already in majority in the Senate, the majority in the house is pretty slim. They're going to get a bigger majority. There is not going to be a big conservative wave. And if Q Anon is to be. Then, all the Democrats are going to get essentially thrown out of office and replaced with the Republicans. This is why I think Yunan has always been a a PSYOPs project and not a nefarious one, just a very out in the open Syapse project against the most gullible conservatives out there they've taken advantage of people's beliefs in order to convince them to act in the way they would prefer them to. When the Q Anon said, don't go to vote in Georgia because it's not a fair election. What the end result was. Oh Georgia clearly is a Democrat state. Where if you look at the local house in Georgia, the local government, you realize it's absolutely not a liberal state that Atlanta may be, but the rest of Georgia isn't. And so having this belief that things will work themselves out for the better, because you're seeing good signs of that happening because you've been. By a number of folks, including the pillow guy, that things are going to be turning our way. The, this is just simply assuming the Democrats are operating on a level playing field and they are not. And we just saw examples of this in California with boxes of recall ballots being discovered. Why would you assume that the tactics used in the last election, by the Democrats, the win at all costs mentality. Why would you ever assume that will go away or change? If anything, because they were successful last election, they're going to double down they'll print twice. As many fake ballots. They'll have twice as much money available to buy off people that are working within the election process. They'll have a lot more Moxie to go through and push their way in than they did last time, because there were at least a little bit worried. So I think the expectation is that the Democrats are going to keep winning and they're going to keep winning until the Republicans are willing to do something about it. And so far the Republicans have not been willing to do anything. Simply suing is not enough. Democrats have already played out the scenarios and done the odds and determined that even if the city sues, even if there are irregularities found, they still win. They still hold the power. They still get control. So what can you do? Well, the first thing you can do is quit smiling and thinking that we're winning. They are being made to look like idiots, but that is not equivalent to a loss by the Democrats in the elections. The Democrats will absolutely be doing the same stuff and achieving the same results in the next election. And for a few of the states, they'll have a bigger opportunity to do that because they've managed to pass or either pass legislation they want, or to block legislation. That they don't want, that would make it more difficult for them to, and I hate to say this term because it is a buzzword to steal the election. It's not really stealing the election, it's buying the election and it's something that's been done in the U S for literally 200 years. There, there have been instances over election fraud and fraud with money involved for as long as the United States has been around. And you can read about in history books, you can look at the fact that Kennedy only got elected in the first place against Nixon. And it said he looked better on television. No. He didn't look better on teller. He did. He did. Okay. Let's be honest. Nixon looked like he was sweating. Nixon needed more makeup more powder on his face to not look like he was sweating, but Kennedy won the election. Because his dad paid off the mob in Chicago to ensure that only ballots for Kennedy came in. That was what, 60, 70 years ago. Well, 60 years ago, anyway, I'm over 60. So my point is that this is not a brand new phenomenon. The only thing that's happened, that's brand new. Is the fact that the Democrats are so confident in their ability to do this now that they're even willing to admit that they are doing this, that they're practicing a strategy of winning at all costs. They have contingency plans for every state. If it looks like they're going to start losing, they will shut down the ballot counts because they've placed the right people into those. And they've paid those people off there. There's let's not think this is ideologic. For some people, it may be, but for a lot of people, it's about the money. It's about getting paid to do what you're told and to shut the hell up. And so they're going to ensure that the ballot comes out in their favor. So what's the antidote. What can we do really to prevent this from happening? I don't think there's anything can be done for the next election. There's not enough. But what absolutely needs to be done eventually is if there's enough of a desire and it's a big gift, cause I'm not sure the us has enough desire to push back against Democrats. Like a lot of people are perfectly willing to vote for Democrats because they don't understand politics whatsoever. And they've just heard the little tidbits and buzzwords on TV that are feel good. So they're perfectly fine voting for Democrats. But it's going to take considerably more than 50% of the population to push back. It's going to require 70% or greater of the population to be on the same page and say, hold on here, we've done our local votes. We've done our local elections and counting of ballots. And we see something that is beyond any statistical errors reflect. And that would be around 70% of a victory condition for conservative. And when those results don't match results on the bigger scale and bigger scale of being both statewide and national versus local being city county and smaller, then there has to be a push at that local level to rewrite and take over the process of it. And right now, elections has not been something most people have wanted to be involved in or doing any kind. It's a chore when you're out busy working, trying to make ends, meet to bother going out in voting even in the first place. But if you can barely give up two hours to go stand in line to vote, do you think you're going to give up a full day to be a volunteer or to even have a paid position within the election process? Hell no. Who are the people that are going to those? There are people that don't have jobs. There are people that are either retired, people that are not working because of choice and by choice. There are people that have figured out how to play the system and essentially living on government subsidies or they're people that have managed to turn their political ambitions and house. Because their partner works, their husband works. Their wife works into something that they can afford to do on a more full-time basis. So while there are some people like that, I'm a conservative aside. There are a very small minority. The majority of the people working at the polls, people that are involved in the election process in general, have a very left leaning bent because right. Bent individual. Are too busy, trying to make more money to better their families. The left side of the equation are busy trying to figure out how to get more money out of the government, out of the state, out of the county, out of the city, out of all these institutions. So it's not until we can take over those jobs or eliminate all the non volunteer positions in the election, until that happens, the Democrats will keep winning. You, you can't compete against an asymmetrical force like that, believing that you have a playing field that is completely even, that's not the case. And even if the conservatives represent 65% of the population and realistically 55% are, or sorry, 45% are liberally inclined. That is not enough of a swing to win an election because making up that extra 20%. And it's really not even 20, it's really an extra 11%. That's all it has to happen. 11% more votes have to be generated and come in to those polling places to push the Democrats for a win. They have their base of 40, they just need 11% pulled out of thin air to make up for that, which they will absolutely do. They've proven that over and over now that they're willing to do it. And you have even with the majority of conservatives are ripples. You just not going to win. That's just reality in this country today. And I think people that assume that simply having a majority is enough to win are being very naive. Now, specifically, what is it going to take? There's a lot of individual cases here, but it's not just simply contesting or pointing out votes that went South or let's say w votes that went skew from the expected, the result pointing that out. Isn't going to change the vote. What needs to happen are one or two things. And the first one, I'm just going to say most conservatives, myself included are not willing to do. And that is to match the Democrats step for step. If the junk rats do something. And the Republicans do something fishy. Then you're back to an even playing field. Aren't you? So if the Republicans are willing to do the same kind of stuff, the Democrats have shown to be doing, then we're back to an even playing field. But the Republicans and conservatives, I should say, not just Republicans have something the Democrats don't have, and that is morality. And it's hard to do things that are immoral without having to take a toll on you in the longterm. You can sometimes get away with doing something morally. And God knows there's plenty of people cheating on their marriages right now, but ultimately it catches up to you and it takes its toll. Now for conservatives cheating in an election or doing something that they would call cheating is a goes against their morals for liberals. It doesn't go against their morals because their morals are not based on the. Common morality of the Western society. Their morals are really based on humanism and humanism in particular. And I know this is not like a religion versus atheist argument, that all, this is more of an argument of what would you consider to be of high, moral value and for a lot of liberals, things that they would have very strong moral opinions on are like animal rights and. The environment and the non destruction of these are the things that would be of the same level of morality that for conservatives would be on the level of cheating in the elections. So you can see that cheating on the elections to illiberal. Isn't really immoral. It's simply what you have to do to ensure that the right people get into office and the right laws are passed. Which are something that is moral in their morality. And if you want people to get elected who are going to ensure the environment is treated differently, that, and better in their view, that animal rights are respected. And that we stopped doing all drug testing on all animals, because we like our dogs too much. These things are more important to the liberal mind than. Not cheating in the elections. They don't see it as cheating. They see it simply as this is all part of the political process and we're doing what we need to ensure that the right people get into office. And then those people will share our moral values with us, the liberal moral values. So I'm not advising conservatives to do things that are immoral or go against their morals. So if we can't get to an even playing field with the liberals, what can we do? We need to have an overwhelming majority. We need to have something that is beyond question in terms of victory. When there are a hundred thousand votes cast and 70,000 of those votes have a conservative pick on them. And then another 60,000 volts show up out of the blue that only have the president as the candidate. That's the only thing they voted for. And they're a hundred percent coming in as liberal. That right there is the the thing that's going to create a change. And so I'm having a hard time finding the right words to express this because. I know, I don't want to use any kind of a politically charged terms that involve taking the country back through physical force. However, I will say when laws aren't complied with states, local governments and even smaller jurisdictions cities have the rights to enforce laws and those law. Can that are done at the local levels? Have a much higher chance of being put together by a conservative, because conservatives tend to win local elections because the liberals don't bother trying to steal local elections. They don't bother trying to contest local elections through fraud. They do it. They only focus on the national scale. Or maybe sometimes even the state scale, but generally not a local scale. So we need to have more local governments creating more laws around the election process. And while those laws are also being challenged by liberals, they have a much lesser chance of prevailing there. So if you have laws that basically say that in there that there should be. A disclosure of political affiliation for everyone who volunteers in the in the voting process. Some people don't want to disclose those. I understand that you may not be comfortable doing that, but if you were to disclose political affiliation or at least the research that political affiliation by simply looking at people's rights, You will absolutely find that even in conservative districts, the people that are working in the polling booths are not conservatives much, like with the school systems where a lot more liberals going to the education system, a lot more liberals going to the polling system, into the election system than conservatives. And if you don't have laws that ensure that there is an unbiased effect there, you're going to end up suffering the consequences. From a local standpoint there needs to be more pressure put on politicians to focus on election laws at every level. I know that there's been pushback from the federal government on state election laws. We need to have state election. Those, we need to have county election laws. We need to have city election laws, all reinforcing each other to provide the most clear view of the voting process. And to ensure that the biggest amount of transparency possible, because the lack of transparency is what the liberals utilize to push the elections to their side. They know that if there is an ambiguity that exists, that prevents transparency, that nobody actually checks the numbers on the ballots, that the ballots are not kept in a. In a secure facility that there, there are obviously yes, problems with the election process. They will take advantage of that. And I predict they will this coming midterm election as well. And we'll see if I'm right and I hope I really hope I'm wrong. I really hope there is a massive groundswell of conservative victories going on, but I just don't see that happening because I don't see that the liberals are going to stop using the same tactics that they use during the last cycle. And with those tactics, they get to put in the final vote, they get to watch what's coming in. They get to decide how much is needed and they get to put in just enough votes to flip the system over.

Kids are Petri dishes
Buying Power 1970
The coming midterm disapointment