With all due respect, is Biden all there?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.

With all due respect and honor due to the leader of the free world, I have to ask, is President Joe Biden all there? There have been rumors of dementia as far back as when he was running for President. The media covered for him then, as they do now, calling his mistakes “gaffes.” I remember when he said during his Presidential campaign that he was running for the Senate.

It would be unfair to point to the occasional misstep as a sign of mental decline. However, the more he campaigned, the more those “gaffes” appeared. You would see them even when he was reading from a teleprompter.

Political commentators have been monitoring President Biden throughout his career and the contrast of his earlier years with today are striking and undeniable. The American Spectator made these comments in the article, “Tracking Biden’s Mental Decline.”

The jumbled speech often leaves voters wondering what Biden means to convey. 

Speaking on the coronavirus for an interview with the View in March, Biden said, “We have to take care of the cure. That will make the problem worse no matter what — no matter what.”

In an April ABC interview, Biden said, “We have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle a way that we can both have a democracy and elections and at the same time, correct the public health.”

At a CNBC interview in May from his basement, Biden said, “I mean we should be invested, we, we should become the net exporter of the new technology by investing the 40 billion dollars in the, the, the 400 billion dollars I’m proposing in research and development for new ways to absorb carbon.”

Fast forward to the Biden Presidency and the sycophantic adoration from the mainstream media has become nauseatingly apparent, even overseas. To quote Sky News host – Alan Jones:

President Joe Biden continues to “blunder on” while enjoying a “dream honeymoon” from the US media.

“When Donald Trump was President, the typical CNN fare was chronicling Trump’s ten worst abuses of power,” Mr Jones said. “How does the Western world survive and democracy thrive, if there is not honest and objective assessment of this already flawed President”.

The people see this and the politicians who work on the Hill see it too. Senator Lindsey Graham has been quite vocal lately, voicing doubts on who is really in charge at the Whitehouse. To quote a Newsmax interview of Senator Graham:

“I like Joe Biden, but the agenda is AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D‑N. Y.], [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer, Sen. Bernie Sanders,” Graham told “Greg Kelly Reports” of his former fellow senator Biden.

“So, no, I don’t think Joe Biden’s in charge.”

So, does this mean that President Biden is President in name only? Sometimes it seems that way. It was reported by The Epoch Times recently that Vice President Kamala Harris was the one calling heads of state; a job customary to the President.

And did you know this?

A bit more context from BPR:

Dozens of House Democrats have sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to relinquish sole control over the country’s nuclear weapons codes, citing “real risks” that could lead to an accidental or rogue launch.

“…Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks,” said the letter, which was led by California Rep. Jimmy Panetta. “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.”

“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter further states. “The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”

As much as President Trump was reviled by Democrats (and some Republicans – to be fair), NO ONE suggested that he should be denied sole control of the nuclear codes. Does this make me very, very, very, very and VERY concerned? YES, especially since Biden launched his first airstrike today.


Now, traditionally, the President would have given his first State of the Union address by now. (Click here for a history of when President’s have given their first SOTU addresses.) However, President Biden has not. Why? Speculation is high that it is due to his (obvious?) mental faculties being in decline. Whether that is true or not, the optics of President Biden not following tradition is more fodder to his political enemies. To save face, President Biden will have to speak soon or, present a very good reason why he cannot stand before the American people. I predict a false flag operation. Something that promotes the narrative that Trump supporters are dangerous and thus justifies the military stationed at the Capital and the huge wall of protection. Something to change the subject away from dementia; at least for a little while.

Oh, wait, what’s this?


I’m done. More tomorrow.

What will Black Lives Matter do Next?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.

What will Black Lives Matter do Next?

Black Lives Matter raised $90,000,000.00 last year. But, where did the money go? The Daily Mail produced the article, “BLM group raked in $90MILLION in donations last year: Leaders disclose finances for the first time – but angry local chapters say they are not being given any of the money” and it is very interesting, to say the least, here are the bullet points.

  • Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is now building infrastructure to catch up to the speed of its funding
  • BLM plans to use its endowment to become known for more than protests
  • BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors said the foundation is focused on a ‘need to reinvest into black communities’ 
  • The foundation said it committed $21.7 million in grant funding to official and unofficial BLM chapters, as well as 30 black-led local organizations 
  • It ended 2020 with a balance of more than $60 million, after spending nearly a quarter of its assets on the grant funds and other charitable giving 

A few more quotes from the same article:

This marks the first time in the movement´s nearly eight-year history that BLM leaders have revealed a detailed look at their finances. 

In its report, the BLM foundation said individual donations via its main fundraising platform averaged $30.76. More than 10% of the donations were recurring. The report does not state who gave the money in 2020, and leaders declined to name prominent donors.

In a letter released Nov. 30, the #BLM10 claimed most chapters have received little to no financial resources from the BLM movement since its launch in 2013. That has had adverse consequences for the scope of their organizing work, local chapter leaders told the AP.

My impression is that since BLM has been under constant pressure by its local groups, endured earlier scrutiny over its finances, was snubbed by political allies and mired in controversy (to say the least) it is seeking greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public, to include their detractors. I think they are playing the long game as evident by their alignment with the public school systems. Although some see said alignment as an unwanted intrusion set to further divide America, a survey of teachers prove that it will be more welcomed than not. Such is only the beginning of BLM’s ambitions as I suspect they are striving to become a bonafide political party.

According to a Feb 15, 2021 Daily Mail article, BLM has already tried to establish itself as an official political entity in the UK. Here’s a quote:

The Electoral Commission has rejected a controversial application to set up a Black Lives Matter (BLM) political party in Britain because its name would be ‘likely to mislead voters’.

The independent election watchdog argued that a ‘reasonable voter could assume that the party represents, or is in some way associated with’ the grassroots BLM movement and its official UK affiliate.

A spokesperson told MailOnline that the party’s proposed constitution and financial scheme were ‘incomplete’ and also rejected, as the manifesto did not determine the structure and organisation of the party. 

The application was submitted to the election watchdog by applicants whose identities remain unknown just five months after the killing of black man George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis.

Further down in the article it reads…

Tory backbenchers claimed the application to set up the party proved that BLM was a partisan political project with Left-wing objectives, including ‘deconstructing the concept of “family” and defunding the police’.  

However, at the time the bid was lodged the main Black Lives Matter UK (BLM UK) group insisted it had no affiliation with the applicants.  

While unsuccessful in the UK, some are lobbying for BLM to form a political party here in the USA. So far, BLM has created its own Super PAC and (as far as I know) has not yet applied to officially become a political party. That being said, I do not think that BLM is able to create a long-lasting alternative to the Democrat party. Why? Since 1968 no Republican presidential candidate has received more than 13% of the African American vote and surveys of African Americans regularly show that upwards of 80% of African Americans self-identify as Democrats. However, President Trump has somehow managed to successfully chip away a significant amount of that loyalty. This quote from RedState:

According to the poll, the number of blue-collar workers who call themselves Republicans has gone up by 12 percent in the last decade. Meanwhile, blue-collar workers who identify as Democrats have dropped by eight points. The number of black and Hispanic blue-collar workerswho identify as Republican has also gone up, with Hispanics up 13 percent and with black blue-collar workers up 7 percent over that same period of time. Meanwhile, the white-collar worker numbers have stayed about the same, with the GOP losing just one percent and Democrats picking that up.

A lot of that growth and change is people who came to the party under President Donald Trump because they saw the positives and changes that were happening to help the American worker.

If Democrats are losing their influence on Black and Hispanic voters then they do not want to lose their leverage to anyone because it reduces their political power; something they will not release without a fight. (And neither would Republicans, if they were in power.) Such being the case, I would expect Democrats to block any meaningful steps of BLM becoming a viable 3rd party.

If by some means BLM managed to pull it off, I imagine they would likely meet strong resistance from the Democratic Party even as BLM vilified Republicans. At the end of the day, I think BLM will be forced to remember how the Democrat leadership supported them when it was politically expedient yet, separated themselves once the political winds changed. At best, I think BLM will continue to be an influence within the Democratic party because they are too useful as a galvanizer of outrage and thereby, votes. I think BLM is smart enough to realize that and will use that fact to get what they can get; as long as they do not dare threaten the Democratic power base.

As I write this, I cannot help but think about history repeating and the obvious parallels between BLM and the Black Panther Party during the Civil Rights Era. Check out this quote from History.com:

Newton and Seale drew on Marxist ideology for the party platform. They outlined the organization’s philosophical views and political objectives in a Ten-Point Program.

The Ten-Point Program called for an immediate end to police brutality; employment for African Americans; and land, housing and justice for all.

The Black Panthers were part of the larger Black Power movement, which emphasized Black pride, community control and unification for civil rights.

While the Black Panthers were often portrayed as a gang, their leadership saw the organization as a political party whose goal was getting more African Americans elected to political office. They were unsuccessful on this front. By the early 1970s, FBI counterintelligence efforts, criminal activities and an internal rift between group members weakened the party as a political force.

The Black Panthers did, however, start a number of popular community social programs, including free breakfast programs for school children and free health clinics in 13 African American communities across the United States.

If history is indeed going to repeat itself, look for the following from BLM in the near future:

  • On the national level, an image makeover continues with BLM toning down the “defund the police” rhetoric and “mostly peaceful protests” so as to distance themselves from 2020. BLM 2021 is a new thing, so forget any previous negativity associated with them.
  • BLM launches a series of social programs once the Covid pandemic is over. They will be highly publicized and well-received. They will be the main explanation of how BLM spends their donation money.
  • BLM will stealthily support a new school of African American politicians. They will be moderate centrists on the outside and far left radical on the inside. The potency of the opposition research against them will decide the winner of their election races; barring any election day shenanigans. (Until the BLM makeover is complete, BLM support of candidates will be understated.)
  • The Democratic Party will make more promises to BLM as election season draws near (US House of Representatives and Presidential 2024) and as a result, BLM will either 1) use the occasion to get substantial rewards as payback for earlier snubs and/or 2) be taken advantage of again, which will result in infighting within BLM, causing it to implode under the pressure.

Of course, I could be wrong. I will make a note to review this in a couple of years and see how good my prediction was.

Okay, enough ranting today. More tomorrow. Can’t wait? Click this.

Who decides the sex of your child?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.

Who decides the sex of your child? Biology? Not anymore, if some people have their way. Did you know that there is a growing movement to give the choice of personal gender to children without input or prior consent from their parents? Check out these 2 quotes. The first quote from The American Mind:

A few minutes later, the doctor slinked out and waved goodbye without a word. On the way to the car, the boy told me what happened. “She talked to me about drugs and alcohol. And she told me when I have sex to use a condom.” 

And finally, the kicker: “Then she asked me if I was comfortable with my gender.” 

He thought the gender question was absurd and funny. But he was outraged about the condom question. “Mom, she told me to use birth control. Until I’m twenty-five! I’d be committing a mortal sin.” He’s so good. I don’t deserve him. I got angrier and angrier as we drove home. Here was this doctor my son had seen in person a total of five times in his life probing his most intimate secrets. Does the white coat magically melt away kids’ stranger danger and cause them to open up to middle-aged harridans holding clipboards? Guys, they really do want to separate you from your children and dictate their own agenda to them! It’s not just theoretical anymore. This time it’s personal. 

I realized too late that I don’t know anything about our doctor, I don’t know her beliefs or her politics, because it never occurred to me that a pediatrician visit would become political. 

Are you comfortable with doctors impressing their politics and ideas of gender reassignment on your 10-year old child? If so, then this next quote will not disturb you either. Its from The National Pulse’s article, “Biden’s HHS Pick Advocates Sex Changes For Kids.”

Most alarmingly, Dr. Levine has advocated for sex changes for pre-pubertal people, otherwise known as “children.”

A professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine, Levine has given lectures in various settings since at least 2012 on how to perform sex changes and gender conversion therapy on children.

According to Levine, children ought to be given the latitude to choose their own gender. Levine has advised adults to “try not to force them one way or other [sic]” and instead to follow the child’s lead.

I find this VERY concerning. In my view, gender reassignment surgery is an adult decision and not something a child should be making. Why? As they mature, they might regret the decision. Check out this quote from the Daily Mail:

‘Hundreds’ of transgender people who have transitioned want to un-do their surgery, a campaigner who decided to stop identifying as male has revealed. Charlie Evans, 28, from Newcastle, was born female but identified as male for almost ten years before deciding to identify as a woman again. 

‘Hundreds’ of people have contacted her, including 30 in Newcastle alone, asking for guidance around detransitioning – the process of becoming the gender they were born – after she went public with her decision last year, she told Sky News. 

‘I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it,’ Ms Evans said. 

Medical ethicists tend to be against it as well. This is a quote from The NY Times:

Risky procedures, like gender transformation, require a greater depth of informed consent. Some pediatric ethicists argue that, based on our understanding of adolescent brain development, adolescents should never be asked to make independent decisions about life-altering medical treatments, such as refusal of life-sustaining treatment or participation in risky research.

General medical ethical principles for children and adolescents emphasize that the capacity for decision making increases, at different rates, with age, experience, cognitive development and emotional development. Ethicists often counsel that pediatricians and families should avoid making choices for children that they will be able to make for themselves as adults – such as genetic testing for adult onset conditions for which there is no ameliorating treatment available during childhood. So it would be inadvisable for parents to consent to gender transforming surgery a child wants, if the child does not have full decision making capacity.

What makes this issue so incendiary, I think, is that in many cases (not all) the very thought of children considering gender reassignment is not even their own. Indeed, some children have been victims to indoctrination efforts where an adult tells the child they are transgender until the child accepts it as truth and parrots the sentiments back to them. An example of this is in this video.

When I was researching how some people convince their kids that they are transgender (its a thing), I stumbled across a very fascinating article from The Daily Signal called – “I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.” The author starts off this long insightful piece like this:

Transgender politics have taken Americans by surprise, and caught some lawmakers off guard. Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina. But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us—children—and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

In the article, the author dropped several “truthbombs” that I had never heard before and I read a lot. These were a few of them:

Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

(Indeed, they likely will since there is a financial benefit to the phenomenon.) The author then makes several bold statements supported by medical research studies that I would encourage you to read further. And they are:

  1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”
  2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.
  3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.
  4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.
  5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.
  6.  Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.
  7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.
  8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

The author concludes with, “Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse.” Wow.

Some states recognize the risks (or perhaps outraged parents who saw what was happening in Oregon persuaded them) and have made steps to criminalize sex change operations for minors. Kansas made steps to do that very thing earlier this month. And at least 6 states were already leaning that way last year.

Without a doubt, the debate will rage on with some arguing its okay and others, its not okay. If you ask me, no one under 21 should be making that decision. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.What do you think?

Additional resources:

That’s it for now. More rants tomorrow.

Trump: It ain’t over until its over.

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt a massive blow to President Trump, his supporters and America at large by refusing to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases. I don’t know what that means for the other battleground states in the last election but, I am not optimistic. People on the left no doubt will cheer this news whereas people on the right will lament. I join the right in this not out of solidarity but out of concern for my country.

If I ran for public office and there was a hint of impropriety, I would want every detail checked so as not to appear an illegitimate winner. Such a stigma would taint my administration and hamper the goodwill needed when crossing the aisle to get things done. However, such is not the case in these times and as a result, the ideological divide across party lines will only widen. Injustices, real and imagined, will color the views of every citizen and encourage some to harm. (Just wait.)

So, how did President Trump handle the news? Essentially, he said it ain’t over until its over. There have been rumors from inside his family that Donald Trump would be running again in 2024. Here’s a quote from The Epoch Times.

Former President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and former senior adviser Lara Trump indicated that he is “probably” interested in running for office in 2024.

“He has told us to stay tuned and that this is not over for him, and he has indicated that he probably would be interested in running again in 2024,” she told Fox News on Sunday.

In discussing the former president’s scheduled appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida this week—his first public appearance since leaving the White House—Lara Trump called him the “head of the Republican Party.”

“He is really the person that everyone will continue to turn to, in order to help them get across the line, whether we’re talking about 2022 or beyond,” she said. “I think this man has changed politics, and he has changed our party, the Republican Party. There is no doubt about it.”

Despite whispers of a 2024 run, there are also suggestions to the contrary being argued. Check out this quote from the DailyWire:

Former President Donald Trump wants to reassert control over Republicans by billing himself as the party’s “presumptive 2024 nominee” after losing reelection to President Joe Biden.

Trump is scheduled to speak at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference to take place in Florida over the weekend. He intends to use his speech to pummel the Biden administration as well as stake his claim as the de facto head of the GOP moving forward, Axios reports, citing anonymous allies of the ex-president.

Some close to the former president believe that Trump is unlikely to run again in 2024. According to Axios: “Many Trump confidants think he’ll pretend to run but ultimately pass. He knows the possibility — or threat — gives him leverage and attention.”

So, will he or won’t he? I predict he will. Why? He is a fighter for sure and now more than ever, its personal. Its about how his name will be remembered for generations. I very much doubt that he would walk away from a situation where he feels he has been wronged and wronged “bigly.” Take for example the other thing that the Supreme Court did today, they ordered President Donald Trump’s accountants to release his financial and tax records to prosecutors in New York. This was part of President Donald Trump’s response:

So now, for more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S. The Tea Party was treated far better by the IRS than Donald Trump. The Supreme Court never should have let this “fishing expedition” happen, but they did. This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location, New York City and State, completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine, Governor Andrew Cuomo. These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!

Rather than quote the entire rebuttal, I’ll skip down to the last line.

I will fight on, just as I have, for the last five years (even before I was successfully elected), despite all of the election crimes that were committed against me. We will win!

That does not sound like someone who is tired of the fighting and wants to go quietly into the night. As with any war and yes, this is a war (of ideologies), there are people who will dissent and those who are roaring for a fight. And in this war, the mainstream media will do what it can to stymie the voice of President Trump but, his supporters will rally, even at personal cost. The old rules of politicking will have to change on both sides and soul-searching will have to commence in earnest. And more than anything else concerning politics, you can expect loads of irony and hypocrisy. As an example of that, umm… I’ll just leave this here.

That’s it for today. More tomorrow. Please share this.

Critical Thinking is Never a Waste of Time

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Subscribe to my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own.

Okay, want to hear something funny? Funny – sad, not funny – haha. The New York Times has made the argument that critical thinking is bad. Instead of looking at a news items from various perspectives and/or seeking additional sources to validate (or debunk) the information, its far better to trust whatever data you find quickly and proceed from there. Why? Anything else is a waste of time. Here is a direct quote from Charlie Warzel of NYT. His piece: “Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole Critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.”

A reporter working on an investigative story or trying to synthesize complex information will have to go deep. But for someone just trying to figure out a basic fact, it’s helpful not to get bogged down. “We’ve been trained to think that Googling or just checking one resource we trust is almost like cheating,” he said. “But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed. But deeper into the process, it often gets weirder. It’s important to know when to stop.”

He goes on to explain something called the SIFT method which is being taught in the USA and Canada. The essence of the instruction is that it should take no more than 90 seconds to fact check someone. To quote:

The SIFT method and the instructional teaching unit (about six hours of class work) that accompanies it has been picked up by dozens of universities across the country and in some Canadian high schools. What is potentially revolutionary about SIFT is that it focuses on making quick judgments. A SIFT fact check can and should take just 30, 60, 90 seconds to evaluate a piece of content.

The four steps are based on the premise that you often make a better decision with less informationthan you do with more. Also, spending 15 minutes to determine a single fact in order to decipher a tweet or a piece of news coming from a source you’ve never seen before will often leave you more confused than you were before.

I disagree with this line of thinking. If someone is to get to the bottom of a subject, you cannot always take things at face value. For one, all too often news (mainstream news especially) is agenda driven and left leaning. Fox being a notable exception; there news leans conservative, although that’s debatable these days.

So, let’s experiment with this short fact check verification method by doing some quick research on Google News. I look up “how long will be wearing masks?” and I quickly discover that according to Dr. Fauci, we may be wearing them until 2022.

If you want to hear it from him directly, check out the tweet below.

If Fauci says we are “possibly” going to be wearing masks until 2022, my critical thinking has me wondering why; especially when there are credible opposing views? Consider this quote from The Wall Street Journal from the article, “We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April.”

Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we’d call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

Now add people getting vaccinated. As of this week, 15% of Americans have received the vaccine, and the figure is rising fast. Former Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb estimates 250 million doses will have been delivered to some 150 million people by the end of March. There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection.

So, should I simply take what Fauci has to say as gospel because a quick Google search confirms it? Or, should I research further based on what I found in the Wall Street Journal? Hmm… It might take longer than 90 seconds to research further what was said in the WSJ so (according to methods that Charlie Warzell of NYT proposes), I should just go with my Google search results and not waste my time further. Sigh. If you listen carefully, you can literally hear my eyes rolling.

And just in case my sarcasm was unclear, critical thinking is never a waste of time. News, especially mainstream news (or anything I share), is only a starting point. Do your own research and take longer than 90 seconds to do it.

That’s it for now. More rants tomorrow.

Oh, pictured in the header is the great Thomas Sowell. Look him up. He knows how to think.