Lew Rockwell's defense of Russian Invasion of Ukraine misses 2 key points.

Lew Rockwell's column attempt's to explain why Russia is right and the rest of the world is wrong. However, what is missing from Rockwell's analysis is Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Even if Ukraine became a NATO ally, as long as Ukraine never has nuclear weapons Russia does not have to feel "surrounded". 

Also not sure how Putin's Russia, the country with the largest amount of land and the largest exporter of Oil and Petroleum has to feel "threatened" and surrounded by NATO when Russia could kick everyone's butt economically by having a superior budget surplus, and sharing more wealth with its populace because of its booming petroleum and gas export trade.

Instead, Putin's Russia has chosen to not help its own people even with a Budget Surplus by instead waging an unnecessary war. Defending Russia's actions because Russia is AFWAID of doze dastardly Westerners is highly ridiculous when Putin is riding high with his Petroleum and Gas Exports. 

Only a coward would feel sorry for Putin when he could could be doing so much more for his own people. Putin even raised taxes during his booming Gas and Petroleum empire. Putin is an Arse hat for not doing Russia better than the U.S. is doing Capitalism. 

The fact that Putin can't see his winning hand when it is already in his hands without going to war somewhat proves Dictators will always be flawed as they crush dissenting viewpoints because of an inflated sense of self importance.

Putin's Russia already has an export windfall that only an Angry Dictator would be too obtuse to see.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How Environmentalism and Global Warming Advocates gave Putin Free Money to build up his Military and go on the Offensive.

While I support the efficient, non wasteful use of Petroleum resources, the reduction of U.S. production of Petroleum helped pave the way for oil prices to rise. Since Russia's economy and military economy rely on oil and gas exports, the higher the price of petroleum, the more export profits Putin can put into his military.  While the U.S. created inflation with more and more trillion dollar bailouts, Russia was creating higher profits from higher priced tangible oil exports.

Putin is playing with free petroleum money as Russian petroleum export profits continue to rise. While petroleum conservation can actually lower petroleum prices, as petroleum suppliers other than Russia drop out, Putin and the Russian military, win. Russia's war in Ukraine was funded by the ever increasing profit margin Russia gets from exporting Petroleum. 

In 2016 Barack Obama said....Russia “doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate.” - Barack Obama

When one considers that George Soros funds most of the adrenalized, anti-America sentiment in the United States, including ending the use of Petroleum, the anti-petroleum sentiment has now brought the world, war. If oil prices keep going up, this will continue to fund Putin's War efforts going forward.

Petroleum consumption reduction in the U.S. while exporting more oil at lower prices could help reduce Russia's profit margins from their oil exports, otherwise Russia's big three exports of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Arms will apparently be enough for Putin to profitably continue his war efforts.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Whenever the Media calls Trump's claim of a rigged 2020 election false, they always say there was no "Widespread" Voter Fraud.

This CNN Quote "Trump and his allies in Congress, including Miller, have attacked the legitimacy of the 2020 election despite there being no evidence of widespread fraud" is why I think there was 2020 Voter Voter Fraud.

I have noticed that every time the Mainstream Media accuses Trump of Falsely claiming that there was "widespread 2020 Election Fraud",  they use the word "widespread".

But what about "Targeted" 2020 Election Fraud? There were around 155 million votes cast in the 2020 Election, less than 100,000 targeted votes could have changed the outcome. 100,000 targeted votes is .000645 of the total votes cast. Is .000645, or .0645% of the 150 million votes cast really considered widespread vote fraud? 

.0645% is one vote out of every 1,500 votes cast could have changed the Presidential Election outcome. Is altering one vote out of every 1,500 votes considered Widespread Voter Fraud? And, if a vote was simply flipped from Trump to Biden, then one in 730 Trump votes would be needed to be flipped to give the Election to Biden. I just don't consider flipping one vote from Trump to Biden out of every 730 Trump votes widespread fraud when one Ballot Harvester could have been harvesting dozens of ballots in Sanctuary cities for Biden.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Seattle eliminates bicycle helmet law because it allegedly is a form of racial or economic profiling.

Hearing the pro's and cons of eliminating the Seattle, Washington bicycle helmet law is something a fan at a tennis match would appreciate.

On first glance many might say it is ridiculous to not enforce a bicycle helmet law that apparently has cut bicycle head injuries in half, and to then blame the removal of the Bicycle Helmet Law on racism seems even more appalling. However, Police apparently pull over and cite minorities at a significantly higher rate than White Bicyclists.

Before going back and forth on this issue, let's go to the end game, the kids. Kids ride bikes. When kids see many adults not wearing helmets when the Adults are riding their bikes, the kids may wonder why they have to wear a helmet. This to me is the number one issue. A head injury to a child may be more lethal than to an adult because a kids skull is still maturing and thickening up. The neck muscles of a kid are not as strong as an adult, so when a kid falls off of a bicycle, the damage and medical cost may be extraordinary. Think of the kids as the cons of the Helmet law are discussed below.

Homeless and Minority bicyclists are cited by the Police at a much higher rate than White Bicyclists for not wearing a helmet. What if a bicycle helmet citation had no financial penalty, but was more of a pep talk to encourage the cyclist to wear a helmet and "by the way, if you can't afford a helmet, here is this nifty coupon you can redeem at the bike store for a free helmet"? Would that be so terrible? Some would still yes because it would still give the Police an opportunity to "snoop", "harass", or monitor the comings and goings of minorities who ride without wearing a bicycle helmet.

So Law Enforcement actually positively acting to help ensure the safety of minorities would still be considered a bad thing? Perhaps some Racial Justice Advocates may believe that if the same un helmeted minority is repeatedly cited for not wearing a helmet, even if there is no actual fine imposed, it still be a way to track the helmet less cyclist's movements and could be used to profile the helmet less cyclist as evidence of a lifestyle that is short on safety and long on carelessness? 

Or perhaps the helmet less homeless cyclist might keep selling their free helmet for food, clothing, bike repair, or drugs?

Strangely, this situation reminds me of Voter ID laws. For some reason requiring everyone to have a Photo ID who wants to vote is considered racist, even if the Photo ID were given out for free and even though ironically a Photo ID is required to apply for any Government related entitlement or program.

Ultimately, this may be less about race and more about the right to live among those who comply with bicycle helmet laws while not complying with those same laws. It appears that the goal is to be less traceable in public, and I believe that is proverbial elephant in the room that hides under the cover of racial profiling where none was intended.

When Racial Justice Advocates lobby for the rescinding of laws and ordinances that actually do reduce accidents and serious head injuries, I think mostly of the kids and how they will be influenced to be less careful because the rights of less responsible adults have to be respected.

However, not requiring a bicycle helmet DOES become a teachable moment for responsible Parents regarding a discussion they should have with their kids..."Whenever you see someone riding a bicycle without a helmet, either they are too poor to have one, or they don't want to do their part to avoid tragic head injuries. Either way, you wearing your helmet helps the Hospitals to afford taking care of those who don't wear a helmet and get injured."

I am not sure reducing Head injuries by wearing a helmet allows resources to be spent on the more careless, but at least it's an explanation in a world where adults just don't care how their actions negatively influence kids.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.