Author Archives: Raizen

The World Health Organization is Now Opposing Lockdowns

As the novel coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) spread early in 2020, the prevailing wisdom was “14 days to slow the spread”. We’re now over 200 days into the lockdowns, and there’s no signs that (mostly-left) leaders have any plans for life to return to normal, in spite of the extremely-low fatality rate of a virus that turned out to be mostly harmless.

Now, the World Health Organization (WHO) is advising against shutdowns as a means to control the coronavirus, saying that it was only intended to be considered as a last resort for when things looked especially dire.

The WHO furthermore explained that it does not advise shutdowns due to the widespread economic damage that such shutdowns would cause.

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” said WHO envoy Dr. David Nabarro. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Nabarro pointed to what’s happening to poverty levels as one of the reasons why the WHO is advising against lockdowns:

“We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method,” said Nabarro. “Look what’s happening to poverty levels – it seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school… This is a terrible ghastly global catastrophe, actually.” (emphasis mine)

Those advocating the lockdowns are obviously not considering the doubling poverty rates or the child starvation that their irresponsible policies are causing. But considering that they have no idea how to run a society, how can you blame them for making such a mistake?

Jane Orient M.D. is one of over 200,000 people, as well as doctors, scientists, and professors, who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which has decried the damage done by the coronavirus shutdowns. She is among the many who has pointed to the successes of Sweden in battling the coronavirus, where coronavirus restrictions were minimal, and yet the country has had lower-than-expected coronavirus rates.

Recently, posting anything to social media challenging the WHO’s advice in regards to the coronavirus has been considered grounds on those outlets for censoring the same content, or perhaps even banning the poster. Now that the WHO is adopting a stance that challenges the thinking of these predominantly-left social media outlets, how these outlets respond to this new information remains to be seen.

As I’ve pointed out before, the economy isn’t just some abstract concept that only stockholders and smart people talk about, it’s something that matters to anyone who cares whether a box of pasta costs $1 or $5. Even if you’re one of those morons who believe that wealth should be redistributed while only a few people should actually work, it should make sense to you that a society doesn’t have a reason to eat unless they actually produce something. For something to be produced, businesses have to be allowed to actually conduct business.

If you do not understand this, you are in no position to tell society how to operate.

Empty heads, empty plates.

The Weaponization of Yelp

Yelp, a popular online review site with one of the most popular cellular apps, says it will begin flagging businesses that are accused of racist conduct. The flag would be against establishments that have made the news for racism, but would be removed after 90 days, assuming that the matter involving racism has been resolved.

I’ve used Yelp before. It’s a user-driven review site that can help people decide which restaurants and other businesses to visit, and which ones to avoid. I admit that I’ve made the choice to choose a different establishment because I’ve read one-too-many negative reviews. I’ve even written some reviews, even if just to point out that a fast-food joint is, in fact, a typical fast-food joint (filthy parking lots, an unpleasant connotation of class-warfare from rude employees that could’ve applied for a different job, etc.).

Now, if an establishment makes the news for being racist, that establishment can be flagged on Yelp as racist.

Yelp’s decision to classify these restaurants in this manner on their own is likely to fend off the possibility of review-bombing, which has long been a problem on Yelp. You might have already known that anyone can write up a Yelp review, and in those reviews, people might not necessarily tell the truth. In fact, Yelp themselves has previously shown evidence of review fraud from businesses that have payed people for reviews on Yelp.

In a similar manner to how a group of people can review bomb, a group of people can also agree to make an accusation of racism to the point of the accusation getting media attention. This effectively weaponizes Yelp as yet another tool to tear someone down with the mere power of false accusation.

But it gets even worse in the context of post-truth regressive leftism. It usually goes that if just one person is making an accusation, it can usually be dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky grumbling of a malcontent. But if multiple people are making the same accusation, then it seems as though something must really be up. If a bunch of people can come to a consensus that someone should be a target, and agree upon a story to bring them down, that can be difficult for people to argue against, especially in a culture of people who presume guilt against people arrested for and charged with crimes.

I think this can be called the Jezebel effect.

If you’re wondering who Jezebel is, she’s someone we can read about in the Bible. She was married to a king who wanted a plot of land, but the owner wouldn’t sell it to him. So Jezebel invented a crime against him, and got a couple people to act as false witnesses. The land owner was then slain, and the king got the plot of land, but immediately afterwards got a stern talking-to from Elijah.

If you’re wondering what eventually became of Jezebel, she was defenestrated then eaten by dogs. Not a pleasant way to go.

Let’s be honest here; true racism in America is rare. You’d have to comb the land to find someone who is sincerely racist (as opposed to being falsely-accused). Ironically, the most racist language that’s propagated today comes from the groups traditionally thought of as being victims of racism. Come on, guys. You have to be the change you want to see.

While true racism is bad (as rare as it may be), the witch-hunt for racism has morphed into a mind-destroying toxicity of the worst kind, and is used as a false pretext for going after people merely for being on the other side. To that end, it’s a problem that persists for it’s own self-perpetuation. The weaponization of false accusation is too powerful a weapon for the mobs to want to give up.

It’s obvious to any sensible person why it’s wrong to hate someone for an immutable characteristic. But it should also be obvious why it’s wrong to target someone with a false accusation because you disagree with them, or suspect they aren’t doing enough to champion your own pet cause.

It’s too bad that there are as many people out there as there are who aren’t as strongly concerned with the truth of a matter as they are with its potential to further their own ideology. But as I’ve said before, if it’s necessary to lie to get people to accept what you’re trying to sell them, perhaps you shouldn’t believe it, either.

EDIT: A previous version of this article was written with the assumption that the designation as racist would be made by individual users. It does help to be careful with your news sources, as some of them can present a matter in a way more consistent with the bias of the news organization presenting it. Not that that’s a new problem.

The Fly That Everyone Can Shut Up About

The Vice Presidential debate was last night, and apparently, people actually watched it. That in itself surprised me, because the VP debate was like the diet cola of the campaign debates; in that people largely kid themselves about how much they matter.

Because the political climate today is bloated with people that don’t listen to what the other side has to say (largely enabled by social media algorithms serving content relative to a user’s political interests), there’s no surprise that either side would claim victory while shutting their ears to any point the other side actually made.

Because no one was actually paying attention, when a fly landed on Vice President Pence, that’s what got everyone talking. The next day, when people talked about the debate, it was mainly about the fly, which is to be expected when the debate is watched by a relatively disinterested audience that gave the debate a shot because they already streamed the Marvel movies and binge-watched every episode of The Mandalorian.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Between the two, the fly made the safer choice. I can imagine the fly bursting into flames if it were to land on Kamala Harris.

She’s the person who held people in prison for extended sentences for minor crimes so she could use them for cheap labor, paying them $1/hour to fight California wildfires. She started a fund to bail out rioters, even as rioters that had their charges dismissed by West-coast judges simply returned to riots. She filed criminal charges against the parents of truants, then laughed as she recalled their distress. She obstructed a DNA test that could have exonerated a man on death row, and when he was tested, he was cleared. Then, she blamed workers at her office for the obstruction, rather than take accountability for her own actions.

Reading her accomplishments, Kamala Harris sounds like the Chuck Norris of evil.

But as for the fly, if you guys like the thing so much, vote for it as a write-in. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if the thing actually won.

The Coronavirus Stimulus and Its Appeal to the Monumentally Stupid

Talks have reached an impasse on the stimulus package that was designed to provide relief in light of the coronavirus shutdowns, and if legacy media is to be trusted, millions of Americans are upset because they aren’t getting a few hundred extra dollars in their bank accounts.

Let’s do something educational today. The following is a mathematical sign:

This symbol means less-than. It is used instead of an equals sign in mathematical expressions where the left side of the expression is of lesser value than the right. When the opposite is true, and the right side of the equation is of lesser value, the symbol is flipped horizontally and is galled a greater-than symbol.

This symbol is called much less-than. The theory behind it is the same as the less-than symbol, but with a bit of a subjective element; it can be used when the difference in quantity is vast, to the point that it’s obvious that the two sides of the expression are nowhere close to equal.

Knowing that, let’s make a comparison. The next coronavirus relief package being considered would deposit $1200 into the bank accounts of Americans. If you, like myself, are accustomed to living marginally, you’re imagining all the macaroni and cheese you can buy with all that money.

You might even splurge on the Kraft logo, the bling of boxed pasta and yellow powder.

Otherwise, that 72 inch TV that you’ve been eyeing has come into your crosshairs.

It would seems like $1200 is a lot of money, but there’s a reason I brought the less-than sign into this; we’re going to make a comparison. The poverty level for the 48 contiguous states in the United States is $12,760 (source). Living on that kind of money is not easy, but it’s certainly a lot more reasonable than attempting to live off of the stimulus checks alone. In this case, the less-than symbol is merited, because it’s obvious that the former quantity is lesser than the latter.

Let’s do another comparison. Let’s compare the $1200 number to what a person would make in a year employed at minimum wage, full-time. It varies state-to-state, but assuming the Pennsylvania minimum wage of $7.25 / hour, that comes to about $15,080 dollars per year. Another less-than case where the stimulus package is only of marginal realistic help.

Next, let’s compare the $1200 number to the median household income in the United States for the year 2019. That would be $68,703 (source). In this case, the much less-than sign is merited.

And for anyone curious, the average yearly income for an Electronic Technician is much less than that median household income. Are STEM majors FTW, after all?

It should be obvious at this point that the correct way to deal with the economic damage caused by the coronavirus shutdowns would be to allow businesses to conduct business, so that the people they employ can be compensated for their contributions. Compared to the yearly income of nearly all people gainfully employed in the United States, the coronavirus relief packages are a mere drop in the bucket.

One of the reasons why I tend not to vote Democrat is because I have an understanding of what the economy is, and know how to do simple math, including the direct comparison of quantities. It’s obvious that the left is attempting to court the short-sighted who overestimate their own abilities.

As vexing as it may be, it’s an approach that works, because there are enough dimwits out there to make a difference.

How to Explain PragerU to a Moron

I’ve heard repeated attempts to classify Prager University, also known as PragerU, in various levels of frustration. Because many people are apparently sincere in not knowing what to make of it, I’ve decided to take it upon myself to provide an explanation of what PragerU really is.

Here goes:

PragerU is an informational YouTube channel that provides succinct explanations of conservative positions, usually with guest presenters.

That’s pretty much it. As for the methodology applied to arrive at this determination, I visited PragerU’s YouTube channel and website, and my observations were consistent with the premise, putting aside the facetious and obvious ruse of being an educational institution.

I figured out what PragerU is about, and I did it in the same way one would figure out what Facebook is about (by visiting their website and looking around), or what Nintendo is about (by visiting their website and looking around).

Twenty-first century sleuthing.

TWAT News: Subway Bread as Candy


A franchisee for Subway sought an exemption from an Irish “value added tax” on Subway’s bread. The Supreme Court of Ireland heard the case and decided that due to the concentration of sugar in the bread, Subway’s bread does not meet the legal criteria to be considered “bread”.

According to Irish law, for a baked good to be considered bread, the flour mixture must contain no more than 2% of the combination of fat, sugar, and bread improver. The flour mixture of Subway bread is 10% sugar, according to the Irish Supreme Court.

Wait, how much sugar is in Subway bread? Ten percent?

With its “Eat Fresh” slogan, Subway markets itself as a healthier fast food choice, while offering chips and fountain drinks on top of its hyper-sugary sandwiches. We should, of course, be skeptical of any fast food joint that makes the claim of being healthier, considering their practice of adding sugar to their offerings because they’re aware of the effect sugar has on people’s better judgment.

It would appear as though Subway isn’t above the usual fast food tactics that keep people coming back, as the sugar content of their “bread” is so high, the Irish don’t classify it as bread, but as a “baked good”.

But while we’re discussing the classification of Subway’s “bread”, here’s an idea: we can classify it as candy. After all, Subway’s bread contains a high volume of sugar, and it requires heating to take it’s shape.

If we were to classify Subway’s bread as candy, it would better inform consumers as to the health benefits of the confection, and health-conscious diners can make their choices accordingly.

So the Irish Supreme Court found that Subway’s candy-bread is not technically bread. That Was Actually The news.

Let’s Get Real: The Economy Matters

Found on, edited for language.

Above is a picture of a dinosaur panicking about the economy when seeing a meteor coming overhead. The joke is that, during a potential extinction-level crisis, the dinosaur is expressing concern for the economy, which is conveyed as though its priorities are misplaced. The joke circulated during the coronavirus epidemic as a jab towards those expressing concern about the state of the economy during an epidemic where people are getting sick, as though their priorities are similarly misplaced.

The fact of the matter that seems lost on many people is that the economy actually is something a person can have a valid concern for in the face of an epidemic. Or any other disaster, for that matter.

This is because “the economy” isn’t just some abstract concept that only smart people and investors in the stock market talk about. In fact, it’s relevant to anyone who manages finances. If you care whether a box of pasta costs $1 or $5, then the concept of an economy is something that’s relevant to you.

The etymology of the word “economy” has its origin in the Greek word “oikonomia”, which refers to the management of wealth and resources in a household. It wasn’t until the 1650s that it referred to the wealth and resources of society as a whole. The word used by English-speaking countries to refer to the concept came to be “economy”.

While it might seem like the concepts of wealth for households and societies are independent of one-another, the fact is, the two are connected. This is because the condition of income for a household is dependent on the state of society, especially considering that in the present-day world, very few people hunt, gather, or cultivate their own food. For that matter, they don’t build their own homes, or manufacture their own automobiles or electronics. Everyone’s prosperity is largely dependent on the rest of society functioning well. That seems truer today than it’s ever been.

When one considers this, they come to the realization that the economy is a valid thing to be concerned about during the outbreak of a contagious disease. Or in the aftermath of a meteor strike, for that matter. Natural disasters or any event that has a significant impact on society has the potential to influence the income of resources for any household that that society hosts. If supply lines are disrupted, homes are likely to notice when there are shortages for certain items deemed “essentials”. Even items not related to the disaster can be quickly cleared from the shelves due to a widespread consensus to value them, as was the case for toilet paper during the initial coronavirus outbreak.

A mere concern about a virus was enough to significantly impact the economy, and households (that went without toilet tissues) felt the impact.

After the initial outbreak, governors decided to enact widespread shutdowns, during which some businesses were closed, and many people lost their jobs. Those who were unable to provide for their families and those who became dependent on government assistance are in a great position to understand the consequences a damaged monetary ecosystem can have on their household!

Ironically, the shutdowns had a more devastating impact on the typical American household than the virus that they were intended to respond to. And because the prosperity of a civilization on one continent affects the prosperity of households on different continents in a way unprecedented in history, the stubborn irresponsibility of governors in the United States can have far-reaching impacts on families thousands of miles away.

Don’t believe me? The UN estimated that more than a quarter-of-a-Billion people face starvation as a consequence of the coronavirus lockdowns. Which is terrible news, unless you’re one of those population-control monsters.

One can easily find a video of a professional athlete having dinner in their large mansion, engaging in platitudes like “we’re in this together”. But in reality, for most people, the situation is far different. Most people don’t have millions of dollars saved up, sprawling estates, and enough food on hand to last for months. The general population has largely given up on saving up for retirement just to get by, only have enough food and money to last a week, and live in small apartments. People at large are dependent on a thriving economy to continue to survive, including those who receive Social Security payments, and missing one week’s pay is usually a disaster.

The dinosaur beholding the meteor would actually be right to be concerned for the state of its economy. After all, the meteor might damage the ecosystem’s capacity for sustaining it.

But if the dinosaur were a leftist, it might instead exclaim:

To have a better understanding of the conditions that sustain your life is to be more in-touch with reality.

Comfort in the Concept of a Typical Life

It is the tendency of the human mind to take more comfort in an orderly world that makes sense. This being the case, I think it makes intuitive sense that a person can take comfort in the concept of a typical life, even if one’s own life is comparatively atypical.

When a person visualizes the concept of the ideal of the typical life, they can attain an introspective understanding of their own variance from that ideal. Though a variance from the ideal may be recognized in one’s own life, a comfort in a more sensible world may be attained with the intellectual acceptance of the concept of a typical life.

A person with an atypicality, such as a mental disorder, or a history of criminal behavior, or even victimhood of circumstances, can have the comprehension that there is a typical human experience. In having this understanding, the atypical person can find a comfort in knowing that a typical human experience exists within the realm of possibility, and with this understanding, a certain sanity can be achieved in accepting the existence of the ideal.

The reason for this is because the human brain continually strives to make sense of the world. The more consistent the world appears, with less apparently-conflicting information, the more comfortable that the brain seems to be, even as the person lives in a state of continual pyrasmos, transitioning from one form of struggle to another on a near-continual basis.

Where there is perceived inconsistency, there is more potential for cognitive dissonance, and a person feels less comfortable with the reality that they perceive as there is a higher possibility of simultaneously holding conflicting viewpoints.

However, when a person perceives a more consistent world, the world itself seems more sensible to them, and they can continue with a clarity of mind that enables them to maintain sanity even in a more difficult life.

For this reason, the intellectual acceptance of the idea of a typical life can help a person to maintain their sanity, even as the person understands that their own life deviates from the typical model.

Based on the general culture of western life in the 21st century, it seems like the model of the typical life would resemble as follows:

  • Being born to a married mother and father,
  • Starting to attend school at around the age of five or six,
  • Moving to a new home perhaps only once or twice prior to adulthood,
  • Obtaining a driver’s license at the age of 16,
  • Experiencing one’s first kiss during high school years,
  • Graduating from high school at age 18, not having been held back,
  • Being accepted to a college, and attaining a degree by about age 22 or 23,
  • Being gainfully employed shortly after graduation,
  • Buying one’s own house while in one’s twenties,
  • Being married before one’s thirties, perhaps to the person that they first kissed,
  • Having a number of children that’s around the population replacement rate,
  • Saving a consistent amount of money for one’s retirement,
  • Eventually moving to a smaller home as the children move out,
  • Perhaps at some point taking a vacation to Europe.

As one reads through this list, they might notice some variation between this model and one’s own life. They might even find no similarities at all. Yet, an understanding and acceptance of the existence of this norm can lend one the comfort of a sensible world, even if one doesn’t live up to it. In fact, it’s possible that surprisingly few actually do live up to that model of a typical life, as presented above. Even so, it’s the acceptance of the concept of a normal life that enables the mind to perceive a stable world.

The human mind’s preference for a stable world is one of the reasons the case can be made that the human mind is well-adapted to the acceptance of cultural norms and religious ideas.

Perhaps also the case can be made that too much exposure to novel ideas challenging one’s worldview might have the potential for affecting one’s mental health. If true, this might challenge the conventional thinking that continually cramming one’s head with new worldviews, ideas, and concepts would be the ideal way to develop. It might even be possible that continual learning from the internet might be stressing people in ways they aren’t aware of, as humanity as a whole didn’t in previous ages have the kind of access to information that they do today!

Your life might not be typical. But on the bright side, it’s typical for someone. And there’s comfort to be had in the fact that the world does make some amount of sense.

Federal Judge Finds PA Coronavirus Restrictions Unconstitutional

Image source: The Free Telegraph

In a huge win for Pennsylvanians, a federal court has found that coronavirus restrictions put into place by PA governor Tom Wolf (D) are unconstitutional. Specifically, the ruling was against Wolf’s ban on large gatherings and his arbitrary list of businesses that he deemed “life-sustaining” and therefore worthy of remaining open during the pandemic.

Look, if someone is going to hold elected office in the United States, they should be required to read the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights, at least once. It’s not a long document, so it’s not much to ask.

While late victories are still victories, the major issue that remains is that the bulk of the damage has already been done. The PA coronavirus restrictions have been in place for months. In that time, hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians have been unemployed, the unemployment rate has shot up as high as 13.7 percent, and many businesses have shuttered, some of which will not open again.

If you’ve been reading a lot of my posts (thank you, by the way), you may have noticed that I tend to side against Democrats when it comes to most major issues. One of the reasons for this is because I’ve noticed that Democrats have a tendency towards authoritarianism, which is expressed in how they wield their authority on those over whom they have power, and their adversarial relationship with a constitution which stands to limit their power.

In Tom Wolf’s case, he used the authority he was granted to overstep the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it was the very first tenet of the Bill of Rights that he overlooked, which is generally regarded as the most important of the lot (it’s first for a reason).

But it gets worse: Tom Wolf’s initial list of “life-sustaining” businesses that he deemed acceptable to remain open was both inconsistent and arbitrary. For example, he initially disallowed automobile sales. If your your car was totaled in an accident at that point, you’d have been in quite a predicament.

But hold on, his list permitted automobile rentals. So, a person wasn’t allowed to buy a car for themselves by reason of an infectious disease, but they were permitted to rent a vehicle that frequently changes hands? What kind of sense does that make?

But mass transit remained open. Excuse me? So a person was restricted from getting a car for themselves, including out-of-state car purchases, but crowding into a filthy bus is somehow just peachy-keen?

On the surface, it seems senseless. But when you consider that some Democrats want to get people out of cars and get more people using mass-transit, it suddenly becomes evidence of the authoritarianism that the left is increasingly tending toward.

When you look at Democrats in terms of their agenda, their eagerness to wield power over those they have authority over, and their tendency towards authoritarianism, it’s far easier to see the reasoning behind some of their apparently-senseless decisions.

So it turns out, Tom Wolf’s ban on large gatherings and closure of certain businesses was illegal. How the government of Pennsylvania proceeds in light of this is to be seen.

BLM Riots in Lancaster, PA – Are we sick of this, yet?

YouTube/ Lancaster City Police Department, edited

Imagine that you’re playing a game of chess. However, in this game, something is going wrong: your pawns are moving on their own. On any turn that they move, you can’t make your intended move. But it gets worse: your pawns are making terrible strategic moves, and you can’t do anything about it. Your pawns could very well cost you the game.

That should give you an idea of what it’s like to be on Joe Biden’s campaign.

BLM’s latest mis-move would be rioting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in response to police shooting an armed assailant. Immediately after the shooting, Lancaster police acted transparently, releasing body-cam footage of the attack, leaving no doubt that the police response was justified.

Considering BLM’s history of ignoring facts, they responded as predictably as sunset. But in an interesting twist, the rioting quickly gave way to infighting, as many in BLM insisted that their white members go on the frontline, while others in the group understandably disagreed.

Lancaster, PA is not a large city. One can walk from the west boundary of the town to the east boundary in about a half-hour. After that, you wouldn’t have to go far to find cows and Amish buggies. The difference in culture just miles outside of town is jarring to the point that many tourists might find themselves checking their GPSs to reorient themselves, and to make sure they’re in the right place.

Now little historic Lancaster, which enjoyed a brief one-day stint as the nation’s capital, is the latest battleground in a cultural conflict that’s been fought in major cities across the country.

Which brings up an interesting question: Where do you have to go to be safe? The current generation of left-wing rioters are busy making it dangerous to live in cities, and they’re now pushing into suburbs for little other reason than to ensure that no one feels safe anywhere. Suburban areas have historically enjoyed relative safety from the hard-left marauders, but they’re now hard at work to make sure you can’t simply ignore them. What’s a person supposed to do?

There’s an answer, and it has to do with why it’s such a bad idea for rioters to meander into suburbs. People in suburbs own guns. Not only that, they’re well-motivated to defend what’s rightfully theirs. If you’ve been a single guy living in a city, stewing over class warfare and how the system did you wrong, you’d do well not to underestimate the passion of those who have families. These are the people who have procreated, and their willingness to defend their progeny is a passionate drive. Rioters have already taken to the suburbs, and for some of them, it was their final trip. Obviously, it’s a poor move, and in the context of the chess allegory above, it’s like a stupid move that leads to a piece being taken that cannot be recovered.

But it gets worse. While the media has been working diligently to cover for the rioters, the conduct of the rioters is rendering their endeavor borderline impossible. On top of that, Kamala Harris has set up a fund to bail out violent rioters, making the Biden campaign look even worse. This enables the Trump campaign to take a more advantageous position as the law-and-order candidate.

While Biden recognizes that the rioting is wrong, it’s not lost on the electorate that the rioters are bearing the Democratic party’s pet ideology. This has resulted in the lunchroom discussion tilting away from the Democrats, and more towards Trump and the Republicans. If you’re among those whose job survived the Democrat’s coronavirus response, you’ve likely noticed this phenomenon in your own workplace’s lunchroom. It’s symptomatic of what happens to public opinion when the left can’t reign in its own, and the mayhem increasingly hits close to home.

Having lived in Lancaster county before, I still find it hard to answer the question of why the small city makes national news. But considering that the event this time around was a violent incident, the part of the city that it took place in wasn’t a surprise at all.

If it’s the intention of Antifa or BLM to get Trump reelected, in their own ironic way, they are on the right track. They couldn’t have done more to get Trump reelected if they voted for him, themselves.

So, this time, it’s Lancaster, PA. Are we sick of this, yet?