This is why companies do not give job applicants feedback…

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. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

The other day, someone asked me this question via LinkedIn, “Do you think companies should give more feedback to candidates after interviews?” At this writing, I noticed that the comments were from the perspective of the jobseeker. Understandably, everyone who interviews for a job wants to know the “real deal” on why they were rejected. More often than not, they receive a form letter that says (in so many words) thanks but no thanks, we hired someone else. I thought such was a prudent course of action. Why? Speaking from the employer’s perspective, I said that individual feedback is less likely to be offered to the applicant for a variety of reasons.

  1. They don’t want to get trapped in an unending argument with candidates who will not accept the comment gracefully.
  2. Something meant as constructive feedback is misconstrued and posted on social media and used as an excuse to cancel the company.
  3. They don’t hire candidate because of X and when they make a hire, behold they have X and the person who did not get the job is of another race and as a result, disparages the company on social media.

And on and on…

If a company gives the same polite and terse response to every candidate, it’s safe and less likely to cause drama. That being said, candidates would benefit from feedback. They should quietly receive it when given to them. Companies open themselves to liabilities when they offer it.

I offered that bit of insight yesterday and today, I read an article validating my position. This was the headline, “FACEBOOK TOLD BLACK APPLICANT WITH PH.D. SHE NEEDED TO SHOW SHE WAS A “CULTURE FIT” And here are a few notable quotes:

A BLACK WOMAN passed over for a job at Facebook told federal regulators that even though she was exceptionally qualified for the position, she was rushed through interviews with entirely white staffers, told she wouldn’t like the job, and advised that the company wanted a strong “culture fit,” according to a complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provided to The Intercept.

The woman joins three others who have recently complained to the EEOC about anti-Black racism at Facebook. The agency has begun conducting a “systemic” probe of Facebook, looking into whether the company’s own policies further discrimination, Reuters reported earlier this month.

The article reads on to say, and I’m paraphrasing:

  • The complaint could not have come at a worse time since Silicon Valley companies are mostly White and Asian.
  • Google and Facebook have been hit a lot lately for their alleged discriminatory hiring practices. Like de-prioritizing HBCU candidates and suggesting that people who complain about racism seek mental health care.
  • The woman with the complaint said she was “subjected to Facebook’s pattern or practice of discrimination against Black applicants.” She further stated that her experience and education were brought up only in an early interview with the position’s hiring manager, who she alleges told her, “You have a big brain, you wouldn’t like this job.”
  • The complaint notes that the applicant wasn’t interviewed by a single person of color and that the “only Black Facebook employee [she] encountered during the entire hiring process was a receptionist.”
  • She further alleges that during one of the in-person interviews in California, she was told, “There’s no doubt you can do the job, but we’re really looking for a culture fit.

Do big tech companies like Facebook and Google regularly discriminate against blacks? I don’t know. I was not there in the recruitment process. However, it does seem that those companies have left themselves vulnerable. Telling a candidate that they did not get the job due to “culture fit” was not a wise move as such cannot be easily quantified outside of gut instinct. The fact that she was one of several people going after Facebook is not a good look either because it does suggest a pattern. I was not surprised that she saw so few black people in her interview process because the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley offices is not a secret. The fact that she was rushed through an interview process after waiting so long does not register to me as discrimination so much as it does mismanagement of their interview process. The “big brain” comment could have been an attempt at levity, not sure there. All that being said, the odds seem to be heavily in the applicant’s favor. Facebook and Google better call Saul Goodman.

As I read that article, my initial reaction was half-outrage and half-eye rolling. My outrage was around how big tech companies virtue signal constantly about matters of racial equity. Was this a glaring example of their own hypocrisy? And on the other hand, in this hyper polarized world of cancel culture, everything is racist.

It made me wonder, has there been a spike in discrimination cases filed with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)? For those who don’t know, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Curiosity got the best of me so, I did some research.

I wanted to know which states had the most EEOC filings and discovered this chart that was posted on The National Law Review website. Presumably, California would be at the top of the list with Silicon Valley’s diversity issues. Surprisingly, to me, Texas held the #1 position.

Interesting, but it did not answer my initial concern. Had there been a spike in EEOC complaints to correlate with all the political polarization these days? I found my answers on the website JDSupra, a source of legal intelligence on a variety of topics. A few insights:

EEOC Logged Fewer Cases Under President Trump

Employees filed fewer discrimination claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal year 2020 than any year since at least 1992. The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed, but the 2020 EEOC charges continued an annual decline seen throughout Donald Trump’s presidency.

Sexual Harassment Cases Were Also Down Under President Trump

In 2020:

Claims of sex-based harassment fell to 11,497, down 11.9% from the FY 2018 peak sparked by the #MeToo movement. That number includes all charges alleging harassment based related to one’s sex (treating people of one sex less favorably than others). The EEOC separately tracks harassment of a sexual nature. Charges alleging harassment of a sexual nature also fell to the lowest level in many years. The EEOC received 6,587 such charges in FY 2020, down 13.4% from 2018, and 17.1% from 2010.

Trends since 2016

FY 2016 ended September 30th of that year. Donald Trump was elected in November 2016, and became President on January 20, 2017. Total EEOC charges fell each year of the Trump Administration, after fluctuating but staying relatively flat during President Obama’s two terms.

So, why the decline of discrimination cases (and sexual harassment cases, for that matter) under the Trump administration verses all other recent Presidents? The researchers speculated but could not give a definitive answer. Maybe the EEOC operated differently under Trump than with other Presidents? Maybe more people opted to file with the States instead of seeking to make a Federal case? Maybe overall, employment discrimination itself is declining?

The article went on to compare EEOC filings under Bush (an average of 80,000 charges per year) and Clinton (there was a 21.6% uptick before settling down to the 80K range in his 2nd term). However, I thought what was most revealing is this comment…

When more employees lose their jobs and have no alternative source of income, discrimination claims are apt to rise.

This resonated with me. Under President Trump, prior to the Coronavirus, the economy was operating at record levels. Clinton had a booming economy for a season but, it was well into recession when Bush took over. Such being the case, companies would do well to insure that their hiring and workplace practices are fair at all times and especially during a recession. Not doing so could cost them dearly in finances and employer brand; just ask Facebook and Google.

Wow! That was a long rant. Please share my newsletter with your network. Its good for the environment. Just kidding, but share all the same. Please and thank you.

Paint the Wall Black: The Story of Nini’s Deli

I just watched a poignant documentary on faith and courage set against the backdrop of last summer’s BLM protests for social justice. It made me wonder how many people would have done what Nini’s Deli had done. Could you stand by your principals even if it meant losing everything?

I don’t know how brave I would be in that situation. Do you? Ironically, attitudes have changed since last summer, yet the hero of the documentary – Juan Riesco has maintained his stance. Despite all that Juan suffered, I think in some ways he’s better off because of it.

And now, on with the show…

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. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Juan Riesco grew Nini’s Deli from its humble origins to #1 in Chicago on Yelp before the Black Lives Matter movement cancelled it in early June 2020. His parents, immigrants from Cuba and Mexico, started the small business. Juan took the reigns during a transitional period in his life, in which he converted to Christianity, after living as a homosexual in San Francisco.

After the death of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement promoted posting a black square on social media to show solidarity with the cause. When Juan failed to take this step, hundreds of people went online to accuse him of racism. Juan gently responded to each individual by explaining that he was a Christian and could not endorse the anti-Christian beliefs of the Black Lives Matter organization, but that he did believe black people, as well as all people, mattered to God. The next day hundreds of protesters showed up to protest Nini’s Deli. Juan preached the gospel to them. The next day thousands of people showed up. Juan received thousands of death threats and had to flee the city in the middle of the night to escape. Juan lost his corporate contracts and Nini’s Deli closed.

Even as he lost his business and experienced betrayal by friends, Juan’s faith in Christ and resolve grew. Juan considers the story of Nini’s to be a victory story as many have come to Christ and been inspired by his courage.

Paint the Wall Black: The Story of Nini’s Deli

  • To Support Last Stand Studios:​
  • To Support Juan Riesco:

One Year Later…

A lot has transpired since the events showcased in the “Paint the Wall Black” documentary. Much of it brought to my attention by USA Today. Let me share a few quotes from a recent article.

ONE: The police are now trusted more than Black Lives Matter.

Americans’ trust in the Black Lives Matter movement has fallen and their faith in local law enforcement has risen since protests demanding social justice swept the nation last year, according to an exclusive USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll.

Among Black respondents, trust in Black Lives Matter has fallen by 12 points and trust in local police has risen by 14 points. Among white respondents, trust in Black Lives Matter has fallen by 8 points and trust in local police has risen by 12 points.

TWO: People are not so sure George Floyd was murdered.

Last June, 60% in a USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll described Floyd’s death as murder; that percentage has now dropped by double digits to 36%. Uncertainty has grown about how to characterize the incident, caught on video, when Chauvin held his knee on Floyd’s neck and ignored his protests that he couldn’t breathe. Last year, 4% said they didn’t know how to describe it; that number has climbed to 17%.

THREE: Despite uncertainty, both blacks and whites want Chauvin convicted.

That said, Americans who have heard at least something about Chauvin’s trial say 4 to 1, or 60%-15%, that they hope Chauvin is convicted. That included 54% of white Americans and 76% of Black Americans.

It will be interesting (Is that the right word?) to see how the Derek Chauvin trial is resolved. If the punishment is too lenient, opportunists will leverage the situation for political points, news ratings, riots and looting (aka “peaceful protests”). If Chauvin is charged too harshly, it will be all the more difficult to recruit more police officers in the future and those already on the force will hesitate to their job. That being said, even as the jurors are being selected, I foresee a guilty plea. What will likely happen (pardon my cynicism) is that jurors will arrive with guilty pleas on their mind and any jurors with an open mind will fear personal attacks should they impede a guilty verdict. No matter who wins in the end, there will be a lot of losses for us all.

Thanks for reading! Please share this with your network. More tomorrow.

I predict Kamala Harris will be our President soon.

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. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

In a recent podcast I asked the question, “Does Joe Biden have dementia?” Turns out I was not the only person to have the same concern. Rasmussen Reports detailed the survey responses.

More than six weeks since his inauguration, President Biden still hasn’t held his first White House press conference, and half of voters are worried about his ability to do the job. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are concerned that Biden has not held a press conference, including 37% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-four percent (24%) say they’re Not Very Concerned and 22% are Not At All Concerned.

Recent actions of President Joe Biden are not doing much to assuage those feelings. Here are a few recent examples that hint at his (alleged) cognitive decline.

This was on March 2, 2021.

The happened on March 8, 2021.

And this one from March 9, 2021.

Sean Hannity made a video comparing the Joe Biden of a few years ago (2012-2016) with the Biden of today. The comparison is quite startling.

Biden’s political opponents are using his (alleged) decline to lampoon some of his decisions, such as focusing the military on making “Maternity Flight Suits” which I suppose, is in case pregnant women are sent into combat. (Does this make sense to you? Just asking.)

In Townhall, “Matt Gaetz Wonders If a Transition from Biden to Harris Is Already Underway.” To quote the article:

On Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” host Maria Bartiromo and Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz made some keen observations about the Biden administration that has some people questioning who’s really in charge over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Bartiromo asked the Florida Republican whether a transition may be already underway, given President Biden’s avoidance of the press while Vice President Kamala Harris meets with international leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“What is going on?” Bartiromo asked. “Are we getting ready for some kind of a transition?” 

You have to wonder whether or not the transition to Harris has already begun,” said Gaetz. “Joe Biden’s had more nap time than he’s had questions from reporters. And you’re right. While the Middle Kingdom grows more ambitious in their goals, we are still toiling away in the Middle East. Joe Biden has had more attacks on Syria than he’s had press conferences.”

Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz is not the only one to speculate this. Big League Politics reported on March 9, 2021:

Former Trump White House advisor and Breitbart editor [Steve Bannon] warned of a pending transition to Kamala Harris as President last week, pointing to the neoliberal corporatist’s high profile within the Biden administration and Biden’s seemingly worsening cognitive decline.

Click here to watch Steve Bannon share his predictions.

And President Joe Biden himself referred to his VP as “President-Elect” back in December 2020. Hear it for yourself here:

So, will we see a Harris Presidency soon? I think so. I predict by the Summer of 2021. I have nothing to base that on, just a hunch. Time will tell if I’m right. I take no pleasure in my prediction either way. And to be fair, this is not the first time people have questioned Joe Biden’s mental acuity. I’ll close out with this clip from a decade ago.

Thank you for reading. Please share this with your network. Cheers.

Call your Senator now and tell them to reject H.R.1!

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. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

So, I read this article in Townhall called, “Biden Signs Executive Order Aimed at Expanding ‘Voter Access‘ because I have heard a lot of buzz about it moments before. To quote the article:

President Joe Biden on Sunday signed an executive order aimed at expanding voting rights. It’s the Biden administration’s latest move to expand voting rights as they push the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the House Democrats’ bill to radically transform America’s election system, including prohibiting voter ID laws and mandating taxpayers fund political campaigns.

Umm… Is that true? Well, while I still don’t get the outrage over Voter ID laws, the idea of my having to pay for political campaigns is enough for me to call my Senator and persuade them (ever so eloquently) to vote against it. But are those 2 items the only thing I disagree with in this bill? NO. There is more that I just don’t like and since most people have a life and don’t have the time to research the bill further, allow me to share what I learned. Afterwards, do what you will with the knowledge.

First of the all, the bill that passed through the House and is now enroute to the Senate is 800-pages long. (Well, actually 791 pages, to be exact.) I would love it if they made a law that said all bills should max at 50 pages. Sure, that would mean more legislation traffic but at least the citizenry and the politicians would be able to read it BEFORE THEY VOTE ON IT. Several political pundits have, liberal and conservative, loosely united against the passing of this legislation. That says a lot right there.

The ACLU said this, according to Politifact:

  • The ACLU told lawmakers in 2019 that it opposed the bill. The group said it supported provisions to expand voting rights, but opposed campaign finance provisions that it said would limit free speech.
  • In 2021, the ACLU didn’t use the word “oppose” in their letter to lawmakers. But the group still has multiple criticisms of the bill. An attorney for the organization said it strongly supports many provisions.

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill as unconstitutional for several reasons. To quote a Fox News article focused on the matter.

The letter — led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita — tore into H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” a massive election reform bill and a leading priority for House Democrats this Congress.

“This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box,” Rokita said in a statement to Fox News. “As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The Federalist did a more comprehensive analysis of why H.R. 1 should be a non-starter in the Senate. Based on their quotes and analysis, here are some of the problems I have with H.R. 1.

  • The bill would establish a “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” that would have the power to force judges to testify before a panel of unelected federal bureaucrats…This commission, the Heritage analysis finds, “would be given the authority to compel judges to testify and justify their legal decisions, threatening their independent judgment and subjecting them to political pressure and harassment.”
  • The bill mandates universal mail-in balloting and requires states to wait ten days after election day for any outstanding tranches of ballots to be suddenly discovered in Democrat-run strongholds — oops, I mean, allow all ballots to arrive. 
  •  “Voter ID laws remain popular, with thirty-five states requiring some form of documentary personal identification at the polls. Yet the Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to ‘attest[] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.’ 
  • This bill would essentially create de facto voting rights for the tens of millions of non-citizens inside the United States. Under this bill, states must automatically register every adult and are legally prohibited from inspecting or checking whether anyone who votes is legally eligible to do so. The bill also bans courts from enforcing any legal penalties on any foreign citizens who illegally vote in the United States (Section 1015).
  • The bill would also “Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters,” notes the Heritage analysis. It would require every ballot to be considered legitimate from the get-go, effectively banning provisional ballots. Those are currently used, for example, when a voter shows up at the polls and records say he already voted or he is registered using incorrect information such as the wrong address. Under this bill, he could still vote without the error being cleared up, and with a regular, not provisional, ballot.
  • If passed, the bill would require that political speakers and nonprofit organizations publish the identities of their donors
  • The bill would establish a commission of unelected national bureaucrats to decide where the political boundaries for various districts will be, rather than state elected officials.
  • … This would also create numerous duplicate voter registrations that the bill bans state and local officials from cleaning up, potentially assisting individuals in voting multiple times.

H.R. 1 passed through the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. Democrats control the Senate so the hope is that the more moderate Democrats will work with the Republican minority to push back against the bill. But, who knows?

If you have no problem with any of the items I pointed out in H.R. 1 then, do nothing. The winds are blowing in your favor. If you feel otherwise and I hope you do, there is still time to air your discontent. Here are a few ways.


  1. Visit the Senate website (
  2. Conduct a search using the Find Your Senators pull-down menu in the upper right corner (select your state and click Go).
  3. On the results page is a link to the Senators’ website, contact information, and links to an online contact form (forms vary by Senator).


  1. Visit the House of Representatives website (
  2. Conduct a search using the Find Your Representative zip code search box in the upper right corner (enter your zip code and click Go).
  3. On the results page is a photo of your Representative(s), links to the Representative’s personal website and online contact form, and a local map.
  4. In the event your zip code overlaps with multiple congressional districts, the results page will include boxes for you to enter your zip code+4 or mailing address to find the correct Representative.


  • Using the steps above, navigate to the Congress members’ personal website to find links to their social media accounts, usually indicated by the icon of the social media platform and often located in the upper or lower left or right corners of the website homepage.
  • CSPAN also maintains a Twitter list of members of Congress. Click here and tweet away.


  • Send this blog post to people in your network who would do something positive to promote this issue and muster support against it.

Please, do something.

Should we treat black pedophiles differently than white pedophiles?

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. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome. And if you have not already, help spread the message that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Should we treat black pedophiles differently than white pedophiles?

House Bill 2889 seeks to raise the sentences of convicted child molesters and rapists to mandatory life behind bars. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, a Republican from Lake Havasu City. Currently, child sex predators in the Grand Canyon state can face anywhere from 10 to 20 years in prison—with the potential for probation, parole or work release. But not everyone supports introducing stricter punishments for convicted sex criminals.

Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley, a Democrat representing the ninth district which includes Tucson, was the lone legislator who had voted against the bill on Monday.

“If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country’s population in terms of race and ethnicity,” Hannley later wrote on Facebook. “We all know that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned in this country.”

So, is she trying to make it fair for African-American, Hispanic and Asian sex predators? I wonder if this makes sense to anyone, other than her? Due to critical race theory, sadly, I suspect quite a few are sympathetic to this argument. Click here to read the rest of the article.

Election integrity matters today, in 2022, 2024 and every year afterwards…

This article is one of several examples of why election integrity remains a highly relevant issue today and will continue on through 2024, unless something changes. Here is a quote from this article.

What a mess the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) have gotten themselves into. After refusing to provide ballots to the Arizona Senate for months, as soon as the judge ordered the MCBOS to hand them over, shredded ballots are found in a dumpster. We reported yesterday on how shredded ballots were found in a dumpster in Maricopa county.

Later in the day, a mysterious fire broke out at one of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ farms. It is unknown if the incident is related to the county’s 2020 Election ballots: Today we can report that as the ballots are being pieced back together, they do appear to be from the 2020 election.  

Umm… Who bought all those t-shirts?

So, a VERY large group of migrants arrive at the US-Mexico border wearing “Biden, please let us in” t-shirts.


Are these asylum seekers or pawns in a political game? If the former, where did they get the money to spare for t-shirts? “The Five” reacts to the situation. Lots of interesting comments were made. Could it be that the drug cartels are pushing the crisis to make $500,000,000.00 this year? Is there a strategy here or is it just do the opposite of what Trump did? Should they get Covid vaccines ahead of American citizens should they continue to come in? Is it much ado about nothing? Immigrants have been illegally crossing for years. Rich people don’t care because no jobs are taken from them and (quite possibly) these illegal immigrants will be a lower wage option for them. Watch the video here (or below).

Black Unemployment Rate Rises Despite Declines for All Other Groups

The Black unemployment rate climbed in February even as most other Americans saw a decline in joblessness, underscoring that the labor-market recovery remains uneven one year after the pandemic began. The unemployment rate for Black Americans rose to 9.9%, the highest among all race groups tracked, the Labor Department said Friday. The overall U.S. jobless rate fell to 6.2% and White, Hispanic and Asian-American workers saw declines, the data show.

Read the full story on Bloomberg here.

#BurnTheMask rallies will trend. Give it time.

Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, politicians, and citizens of Idaho spent their Saturday protesting Covid restrictions across at least 20 cities in the state.

McGeachin spoke outside on the Statehouse’s steps during the Saturday gathering.

Another video of the Boise gathering, which was also shared to Twitter and received more than 2.6million views, appeared to show parents cheering on the children as they threw dozens of masks into the fire. At the start of the fire, an adult is heard saying “all at once” and seconds later others can be heard cheering the children on.

Expect to see more of this as lockdowns continue.

Read the full story here.

This is what happens when you defund the police.

The Associated Press reported this:

“Without a doubt, I think it is a possibility that my nephew could still be alive if (the Gun Violence Reduction Team) was not dissolved,” said Yarborough, a crisis response volunteer for Portland police who responds to shootings to support victims’ families.

“I cannot say for sure if he would, but what I will tell you is had it not been my nephew that was saved, it probably could have saved the life of someone else,” he said.

More people died of gunfire last year in Portland — 40 — than the entire tally of homicides the previous year. The number of shootings — 900 — was nearly 2 1/2 times higher than the year before. The spike has continued this year, with more than 150 shootings, including 45 people wounded and 12 killed so far.

Police had warned of possible repercussions of ending the unit, pointing out cautionary tales in other cities that had made a similar choice.

I said defunding the police was a bad idea when the idea was in vogue. I hold to my argument today and will continue to speak against it tomorrow. To hear what I said back on July 13, 2020, listen to my podcast here.

What will happen next?

ZeroHedge speculates, “How The Fight Over American Freedom Will Probably Escalate” and makes a few predictions that seem to be very likely. I quote several of them below.

  • Federal Lockdowns – If the mutation narrative continues on the path it seems to be following, then I expect the Biden Administration to attempt a national federalized lockdown similar to the Level 4 lockdowns used in Europe and Australia, and it will be announced sometime this year.
  • Domestic Economic Warfare – Red states will boom as they refuse to comply to federal lockdowns while blue states bow to medical tyranny.Companies will flee leftist states by the thousands and move to any states that remain open and accommodating. Biden and the federal government will try to retaliate, first by cutting off federal funds to any state that does not bow to their power and refusing to give stimulus to any businesses that relocate. Blue states will be flush with stimulus cash while red states will be forced to reduce or eliminate welfare programs and some pension funds.
  • Complete Erasure Of Conservatives From The Internet – The establishment spin doctors can tell people that we don’t actually want freedom; we want something else, something evil and nefarious. They can tell people we are “fascists”, and that we are “racists” and that we actually want tyranny. Who is going to tell the public otherwise when we are removed from all available platforms and our websites are booted off service providers due to “dangerous ideas”?
  • Gun Control Madness – I know that some people think that leftists under Biden will not try to carry out a widespread gun crackdown and that much of the current talk is merely hollow rhetoric. I disagree. I think the globalists are going for broke, and they need to get as many combat capable firearms as they can from Americans soon. Democrats will push hard for legislation like HR 127.
  • International Intervention – Even now, there are sheriff’s departments across the country refusing to enforce lockdown orders. And, 30% to 50% of medical professional say they will not be taking the covid vaccine depending on the state. When the rebellion goes live, this is when the globalists will have to pursue extreme options. They will not be able to win using domestic forces. Instead, they will seek out an international response, probably through the United Nations.

I hope Zerohedge is wrong. I really, really do. While I can see the potential in all of this happening, I disagree with the timeline. I think a lot of this will be contingent on the 2022 US House of Representatives elections. If it looks likely that Democrats will lose power, more compromises will be made to persuade voters that extreme situations as just outlined are conspiracy theories of far-right extremists. If the Democrats retain the house and somehow hold onto the Presidency, all of the predictions above are likely based on the current political climate.

Republicans banning together might change things but, my hope is not there. My hope is in the clear thinking Americans (Republican and Democrat) who can look beyond tribalism and stretch their hands towards what’s best for the next generation of Americans. The solution is not entirely political, its cultural. We have to have a country that we are proud to pass on to our children. I would think every American wants that. I hope I’m right.

Thanks for reading. The blog post header is from Daily Beast. Please share. More tomorrow.