Ten Year Old Facebook Post

 John Coffey October 7, 2016 ·

hared with Public

I believe in freedom. I think that freedom leads to economic growth. I think that we need economic growth, especially since we are $20 trillion in debt, not counting unfunded liabilities, which are much larger.

I think there is strong evidence that larger, more intrusive governments reduce economic growth. Studies have been done on this, but on the simplest level, you can compare countries at one extreme, like North Korea and Cuba, with countries at the other extreme, like Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. The countries in between tend to fall along a linear scale, with the more economically free countries being more prosperous.

It is not consistent with freedom to have the government take from one person to give to another.

People are worried about corporate power. The Libertarian solution is not to give the government so much power that wealthy people and corporations can influence it.

Paris

 Two dozen schools burned and ransacked; cars flipped upside down; buses and fire engines savagely smashed. 

It sounds like a montage from a dystopian horror movie — but it’s happening right now in France.

What started late last month as a protest about underfunded public schools has morphed into an orgy of Islamo-leftist violence.

Paris and other cities are now awash with foreign flags as throngs of unassimilated youths scream their hatred for France itself.

“In the name of Allah, we can kill them all,” barked one masked thug, to the mob’s demented glee.

We are witnessing something extraordinary: an intifada in the heart of Europe.

Surely no one can now deny the lethal error of throwing open a nation’s borders to the world, while sacrificing the ideals of integration at the altar of multiculturalism.

https://nypost.com/2026/10/06/opinion/frances-riots-arent-protests-but-an-intifada-in-the-heart-of-europe/

What Was Russia Making In That Lab?

 

​The video assumes that Russia (and later China) was working on a bioweapon. Although I can't rule it out, there is no evidence of either. 

This happened to a worker at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia. Reports said a broken test tube caused an infection.


​Google AI says the following...

A 28-year-old laboratory technician named Darya Shipilova at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia died on October 2, 2026, from severe pneumonia, sparking unconfirmed rumors of a pneumonic plague lab accident and resulting in nearly 200 people being placed under medical observation or quarantine. [1, 2, 3]

Recent reports indicate that the death of the researcher at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Shelekhov, Russia, triggered strict containment and quarantine protocols across local medical facilities. While unverified local accounts suggested a broken test tube involving plague bacteria (Yersinia pestis) led to the illness, Russian federal health authorities have strongly downplayed those claims, citing the cause of death as pneumonia of an unknown origin. International health bodies and U.S. officials are closely monitoring the situation and calling for transparency.

The following sections provide a detailed breakdown of the incident, official responses, and the global reaction.

The Incident and Patient Background

• The Worker: Darya Shipilova, a 28-year-old laboratory technician, fell ill at work in late September and passed away at a hospital in Shelekhov on October 2, 2026. [1, 2, 3]
• The Facility: The Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East studies dangerous infections and pathogens naturally endemic to the region. [1, 2]
• The Allegations: Unconfirmed media reports claimed she accidentally broke a test tube containing live plague bacteria, though authorities dispute this. [1, 2]

Quarantine and Containment Actions

• Medical Isolation: Regional authorities placed nearly 200 individuals who had direct contact with Shipilova under medical observation or isolation. [1, 2]
• Facility Lockdowns: The hospital where she was treated and several local clinical areas instituted strict quarantine rules, halting new admissions or visitors. [1, 2]

Official Russian Position vs. Regional Discrepancies

• Federal Stance: Russia’s public health watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, stated that tests found no microorganisms linked to her professional duties and officially classified her death as "pneumonia of unknown origin" or etiology.
• Regional Confusion: Initial statements from the governor of the neighboring Buryatia region suggested she may have died of the plague, though those statements were later edited or dialed back. [1, 2, 3, 4]

International and Global Health Response

• World Health Organization (WHO): The World Health Organization stated that Russian officials informed them no plague cases were detected among contacts, while the WHO continues to press for pathogen data.
• U.S. Monitoring: U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, urged Moscow to share clear information transparently, while President Donald Trump noted the U.S. stands ready to help if needed. [1, 2, 3]

If you'd like, I can provide more details on how pneumonic plague spreads, its symptoms, or the effectiveness of modern antibiotics against it.

Why Are We So Bad at Executing People

Yes, Everything Really Is A Scam Now.

Canadians emigrating at the highest rate since the 1950s

The Haskell Library and Other Border Oddities

Trump’s New Census Rule Would Remove Illegal Immigrants From Counting. Here’s Why He’s Doing It.

Ron Paul Was Right About the Fed

The Renee Good Case Isn't What the Headlines Say

The officer that Renee Good hit with her car had to be treated at the hospital for internal bleeding.  You don't hit the gas pedal when there is an officer standing in front of your car.

US sends MORE TROOPS to Middle East

Why Arab countries ban all Gaza refugees

Finding out about Amsterdam’s new ban

My Facebook Posts from ten Years ago

Here are some things I posted ten years ago on Facebook.  Interestingly, I got some backlash from the anti-Trump people.

#1

I said that I was going to stop worrying about politics, but that is going to have to wait until tomorrow, because I feel a serious need to rant. 😀

When John McCain was running for office, the mostly liberal press did everything they could to vilify him. They said that he was a womanizer who abandoned his disabled wife. I don't know what the truth is, but here is a man who served his country for decades, and people on the left relentlessly attacked his character.

Mitt Romney got the same treatment. He was portrayed as a billionaire who took over companies and fired people. Never mind the fact that he was brilliant at saving companies from bankruptcy. Mitt Romney is probably one of the nicest people to run for President, but the left successfully portrayed him to be a bad person.

Character assassination is a convenient way to not debate the issues. Why have any serious debate when you can just dismiss your opponent over his character? I am only concerned because there are going to be a number of people who make up their minds solely based upon what they hear in sound bites.

Now the left and the press have pulled out all the stops on Donald Trump. Much of this started following Trump's announcement of his candidacy on June 16, 2015, where he said the following ...

"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably, probably, from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast."

I think that Trump's comments were meant to be primarily about illegal aliens. But the press reported that Donald Trump attacks all immigrants. The Mexican press reported that Trump said all Mexicans are criminals and rapists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have seen interviews where people in Mexico still believe this.

The attacks on Trump have been so persistent and so vicious that it makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate on immigration and border security.

In regard to illegal aliens, I have reason to believe that much of what Trump said is true. Crime statistics for illegal aliens are quite high. Thirty seven percent of the people in federal prisons are non-citizens. It is higher in California. Illegal aliens commit 11.7% of all the crime in the United States.

So Donald Trump has been attacked for mostly telling the truth. You can nitpick over details, but immigration is a serious issue.

I will be the first to admit that Donald Trump is a narcissist. I personally think that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath. We have two of the most flawed candidates we have ever seen and we are stuck with them. Despite this, either one is competent to be president. The press has tried to make this election about personality, but I think that what is important is the type of government these two candidates represent. The issues have taken a back seat to character assassinations.

Just when I thought that things could not get any worse, somebody has been putting up naked statues of Donald Trump all over the country. These effigies are not flattering. This is not only obscene, but it is the meanest form of political discourse. It is cruel. It has made my blood boil. Rational debate has gone out the window.

What kind of outrage would there be if people put up naked statues of Hillary Clinton? People would scream bloody murder. ‪‪


#2

Borders define a country. Borders exist to protect citizens from hostile forces coming into the country. The open border position seems to me to be Utopian in that it wants to extend our freedoms to people outside the country. I would understand this if everyone in the world respected freedom, laws, private property and if some weren't looking for a handout. But if some people got their way and adopted open borders, then I think that they would not like the result, which would be disastrous. As I have said before, people will come here until we become so crowded and our resources become so limited (and expensive) that here will no longer be as desirable a place to live. More importantly, there are aggressive people who gladly would come here to hurt us. The issue of national security alone is more than sufficient as to why we need to control our borders.

I am for legal immigration. I think that it needs to have limits. What those limits should be is debatable. If you have limits, then you need to enforce those limits, or else they become meaningless.

Best wishes,
John Coffey

#3

Why This Botched Execution Reopened the Death Penalty Fight

Thoughts on the Election

People who are happy have no real need for politics. However, no such creature exists. People are always unhappy about something, and they want the government to either fix it or stop fixing whatever it is that they don't want the government fixing.

If you ask people what they are for, they are more likely to tell you what they are against. People are much less united about what they want, but they will unite in lockstep against something they oppose. However, there is a danger that, in their opposition, people will vote for something just as bad or worse.

This is why politics is so negative. There are distortions where politicians describe the other side as evil, far beyond any actual reality, because that is how they unite voters behind them. It might not matter that their side is also flawed, just as long as the other side appears worse.

So politics is primarily reactionary.

I repeatedly think to myself that nobody will believe the rhetoric that is being thrown around, but apparently they do. The roughly 10 to 20% of voters in the middle can be persuaded to one side or the other, mostly by things that they don't like about the current government. This middle group has the power to decide elections because everyone else is already committed to their side.

Of course, turnout is vital to an election. Often, a flawed candidate will simply not motivate their voters to show up at the polls.

I think that the political left is more united in its goals. If you ask 20 people on the right what they are for, you might get 10 different answers. However, even though the left doesn't always admit it, they seem more united in their goal of establishing some kind of socialism. They have kept their eye on the prize, and everything they say they want is just another incremental step in that direction.

Individual voters have no power to decide elections. Whether or not you show up to the polls will have zero effect on the election. For this reason, I feel that politics has become a spectator sport, where both sides hope their team wins and the other team loses.

It seems to me that maybe the incentives are all wrong. The federal government has become so powerful that I hardly care about or pay attention to local and state elections. For this reason, I like the idea I saw recently that we should go back to having senators appointed by the states. Although it is less "democratic," it would counterbalance having two branches of Congress elected by popular vote by having state interests also considered. It would also incentivize people to pay more attention to local and state elections.

The incentives are wrong because the system rewards people for voting for government spending. However, we are going bankrupt so fast that I see little hope for the future of this country. We are headed toward a situation where fiscal reality is going to hit us upside the head very soon, and we are going to have to contend with the fact that we have run out of money.

I consider it my birthright to live in a free country. I feel that I was promised a government that had constitutional limits to its power, as dictated by Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution. However, constitutional limits disappeared before I was born, mostly bolstered by liberal Supreme Courts that ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government nearly unlimited power. As a result, I have no right to freedom beyond what mob rule will allow.

THIS Canadian ad shows we’re in a battle AGAINST EVIL

Everything We Know About the FlyDubai Hijacking Attempt

 https://neeeeews.blogspot.com/2026/09/everything-we-know-about-flydubai.html

Maps That Will Change How You See Everything

Huey P Long on the difference between Democrats and Republicans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MKb35NK0F0