Possess the Knowledge

The constitution provides that no one shall receive treatment based on specific characteristics. Yet, various specific groups are requesting special treatment based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. This episode discusses the paradox of the constitutional principle of non-discrimination and unequal protection. 

These selective and particular interest groups are diverse. Yet, claiming discrimination and injustices and using social victimization as their megaphone, they influence the core public policy that used to make this country the bacon for diversity and equal rights. 

The constitution does not promote individualism, minoritism, and self-seeking interest groupism but a solid one-size-fits-all blueprint for equality. One nation, one law, meaning a piece of legislation that is good for one is good for all. Lately, many special interest groups have been rising on the political scene to protest to have rights that are already inherent to them. They claim to have been treated unfairly and unjustly as the constitution allows the majority to discriminate against them based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. 

Under the banner of achieving equality and showcasing self-identity, and socializing victimhood, they perpetuate divisions, messes, and confusion rather than evening the playing field. They do not want the issue resolved because if resolved, their actual existence, or what makes them different from the majority, will be irrelevant. By caving to specific interests, the Constitution steers away from its non-discrimination framework to create new rights. From the perspective of the majority, the enactment of these laws leads to resentment and a perception that their voices are being silenced. The fear of disagreeing with specific interest groups to avoid being labeled discriminatory further tilts the balance between individual rights and the nation’s collective well-being.

In summary, an underlying paradox exists between the constitutional principle of non-discrimination and the need for targeted protections. Selective group-based laws contradict the principle of equal treatment as they create a new form of discrimination. 

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast 

Les plus intelligents d’entre nous ne sont pas ceux qui utilisent des citations et des références pour prouver leur point de vue, mais ceux qui utilisent un raisonnement logique pour proposer de nouvelles idées. Cet épisode explore l’intelligence, non pas comme la capacité de citer des personnes célèbres, mais comme la capacité de penser de manière critique, de s’engager dans une pensée originale et d’appliquer les connaissances dans divers contextes.

De nombreuses personnes définissent l’intelligence comme la capacité d’une personne à citer des personnes célèbres ou à répéter des faits. Ces mêmes personnes demandent rapidement aux autres des sources, bien qu’elles ne les vérifient pas elles-mêmes. Ils disent aussi aux autres de ne pas parler de choses qu’ils ne connaissent pas, bien qu’eux-mêmes ne soient pas familiers avec le sujet en question.

Ils refusent d’accepter tout ce qui n’est pas écrit dans les livres ou qui n’a pas été dit auparavant. Ils mettent généralement fin aux discussions parce qu’ils ne savent pas, ont peur de contribuer aux conversations ou sont simplement trop paresseux pour apprendre de nouvelles choses.

Leur attitude prouve que l’école est l’instrument de manipulation le plus efficace que l’esprit humain ait jamais créé. L’école, telle que nous la connaissons tous, nous donne une perception étroite qui ne tient pas compte de la nature multiforme de l’intelligence et ne parvient pas à saisir l’essence de la véritable prouesse intellectuelle. L’école nous apprend à ne pas prendre de risques ou simplement à suivre les traces de ceux qui ont déjà réussi.

Imaginez Satoshi Nakamoto disant à ces gens qu’il était en train de créer une monnaie virtuelle et, plus encore, Alan Mathison Turing leur disant qu’il construisait un ordinateur qui serait plus intelligent que l’intelligence humaine. Ils les auraient traités de fous pour avoir rêvé de défier la structure préétablie des choses.
Citer des personnes célèbres ou citer des sources est un affichage au niveau de la surface de la recherche de données qui ne mesure pas la compréhension profonde ou la pensée originale. Reprendre l’intelligence à ce qui précède entrave la créativité et une foule d’autres compétences cognitives qui vont au-delà de l’acte de mémorisation.

C’est une perspective myope qui ne parvient pas à saisir la véritable essence de la capacité intellectuelle. Bien que ces actions démontrent des connaissances, elles négligent les aspects cruciaux de la pensée critique, de la résolution de problèmes et de la créativité qui sont des composantes essentielles de l’intelligence.

À l’avenir, il est crucial de réinventer l’éducation et de redéfinir la façon dont nous mesurons l’intelligence. Nous devons encourager les élèves à penser de manière critique, à adopter une pensée originale et à appliquer les connaissances dans divers contextes. Ce faisant, nous pouvons nourrir la prochaine génération d’innovateurs, de solutionneurs de problèmes et de leaders compatissants.

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast

The smartest among us are not we who use quotes and references to prove our point but we who use logical reasoning to come up with new ideas. This episode explores intelligence, not as the ability to quote famous people but as the capacity to think critically, engage in original thought, and apply knowledge in diverse contexts.

Many individuals define intelligence as one’s ability to quote famous people or repeat facts. These same individuals quickly ask others for sources, although they will not check them themselves. They also tell others not to talk about things that they do not know, although they, themselves, are unfamiliar with the topic in question. 

They refuse to accept anything that is not written in books or has not been said before. They usually shut down discussions because they do not know, are scared to contribute to the conversations, or simply are too lazy to learn new things. 

Their attitude proves that school is the most effective instrument of manipulation the human spirit ever created. School, as we all know it, provides us with a narrow perception that disregards the multifaceted nature of intelligence and fails to capture the essence of true intellectual prowess. School teaches us not to take risks or to simply follow the steps of those who have already succeeded. 

Imagine Satoshi Nakamoto telling these people he was creating a virtual currency and, more so, Alan Mathison Turing telling them he was building a computer that would be smarter than human intelligence. They would have called them crazy for dreaming of defying the pre-established structure of things. 
Quoting famous people or citing sources is a surface-level display of data finding that does not measure deep comprehension or original thinking. Resuming intelligence to the above hampers creativity and a host of other cognitive skills that go beyond the act of memorization.

It is a myopic perspective that fails to capture the true essence of intellectual capacity. While these actions demonstrate knowledge, they overlook the crucial aspects of critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity that are vital components of intelligence.

Moving forward, it is crucial to reimagine education and redefine how we measure intelligence. We must encourage students to think critically, embrace original thought, and apply knowledge in diverse contexts. By doing so, we can nurture the next generation of innovators, problem solvers, and compassionate leaders.

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast

The world is currently witnessing a shift in the global oil market. For decades, the United States dollar has been the dominant currency used for trading oil, with countries around the world relying on the dollar as a stable reserve currency. However, recent years have seen a trend towards dedolarisation, with countries exploring alternative currencies for oil trading.
While the idea of dedolarisation may seem appealing to some, history has shown that it can have severe consequences. In this article, we will explore the lessons from history and the potential implications and impact of dedolarisation on the oil market.

Introduction
The oil market is one of the world’s most critical and influential. It can shape economies, influence politics, and spark conflict. As such, any changes to the oil market can have far-reaching consequences.
One such change that has been gaining traction in recent years is dedolarisation. Countries such as Russia, China, and Iran have been exploring alternative currencies for oil trading to reduce their reliance on the US dollar. However, history has shown that dedolarisation can have severe consequences, leading to civil unrest, political instability, and economic collapse.

The Failure of Previous Attempts
Many countries have tried to sell oil in exchange for other currencies but failed miserably. Iraq, Venezuela, and Libya are just a few examples of countries that attempted dedolarisation and faced severe consequences.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would adopt the euro as its trading currency. Three years later, Iraq sold over 3 billion barrels of oil to the world, amounting to nearly $30 million in revenues. However, the people of Iraq were living in poverty, and Saddam did not invest that money in the economy. Instead, he used it to buy and build weapons of mass destruction, which he distributed to various militias to consolidate his power base. The people rose against him, forcing an American intervention to disarm Iraq and free the Iraqi people. Iraq was back selling oil for the American dollar, but the damage had been done, and the country is yet to recover.

Similarly 2002, Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would sell its oil for euros instead of dollars. The people did not support this decision and attempted to remove him from power in several instances. Venezuela, once one of the most emerging economies due to having the largest proven oil reserve in the world, is now one of the poorest countries globally.

In 2009, Libya mistakenly traded oil with all African and Muslim nations in gold instead of dollars. The Libyans blamed their leader for embezzlement and enabling political insecurity in the region, leading to his capture and death in 2011.

The Potential Implications of Dedolarisation
The failure of previous attempts at dedolarisation highlights the potential implications of such a move. Dedolarisation could lead to civil unrest and political instability, as seen in Iraq, Venezuela, and Libya. Governments could fall, and big empires could be destroyed without recovering.
Furthermore, dedolarisation could lead to a loss of confidence in the US dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is currently the dominant currency used for oil trading, and a shift away from the dollar could lead to a decrease in demand for the currency. This could lead to a devaluation of the dollar, which would have severe consequences for the US economy.
Dedolarisation could also lead to an increase in geopolitical tensions. The US has historically used its position as the dominant currency for oil trading to exert influence over other countries. A shift away from the dollar could lead to a decrease in US influence and an increase in the influence of other countries such as Russia and China.

The Future Outlook
The future outlook for dedolarisation is uncertain. While some countries are exploring alternative currencies for oil trading, others are still heavily reliant on the US dollar. The US has also taken steps to protect the dollar’s position as the dominant currency for oil trading, such as imposing sanctions on countries that attempt to trade oil in other currencies.
However, the world is changing rapidly, and the oil market is no exception. As countries continue to explore alternative currencies for oil trading, the potential consequences of dedolarisation become increasingly relevant.

Conclusion
Dedolarisation is a complex issue with far-reaching consequences. History has shown that previous attempts at dedolarisation have led to civil unrest, political instability, and economic collapse. The potential implications of dedolarisation include a loss of confidence in the US dollar, increased geopolitical tensions, and a shift in global power dynamics.
As the world continues to change, it is essential to learn from history and carefully consider the potential consequences of any changes to the oil market. While dedolarisation may seem like a viable option for some countries, the lessons from history suggest that it could have severe consequences for the global economy and political stability.

Summary
In summary, the dedolarisation of the oil market has been attempted by several countries in the past, but it has always led to civil unrest, political insecurity, and economic collapse. Iraq, Venezuela, and Libya tried to sell their oil in exchange for other currencies but faced civil wars, violence, and regime change. The dedolarisation of the oil market could lead to governments’ downfall, empires’ destruction, and nations’ impoverishment.

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast 

Parents let misperceived obligations to their children keep them hostage so much that they enjoy bits of their lives with nothing but guilt. Nowhere is it written that parents must sacrifice their joy and happiness for their children, especially if these children are young adults. Society will not fault the parent who leaves nothing for the children. 

There is one insurance policy that does not protect the actual policyholders, although they are the ones paying the monthly premiums. It instead covers the individuals the policyholders designate to receive the benefits upon death. Unlike other types of insurance like automobile, healthcare, or property; that type of insurance is not a requirement, meaning there is no law requiring individuals to carry one. I am talking about life insurance, which is a death benefit that parents or spouses leave to their survivors upon their passing. 

The five common types of life insurance are term, whole, universal, variable, and final expense. When electing to have life insurance, policyholders give money every month to an insurance company. In turn, that insurance company agrees to provide a portion of the policyholder’s money to someone the policyholders designate as their beneficiary. Life insurance policy takes effect at the passing of the policyholder, meaning that the policyholder must die first for the beneficiary to collect. As you can see, unlike other types of insurance where the policyholder receives something against the premiums while alive, life insurance policyholders get nothing out of it, except the feeling that the children or the spouse will not struggle financially when they are no longer.

Certain types of life insurance have a cash value component, meaning that the policyholder does not only contribute toward his death but also, through the insurance company, invests in low-risk instruments such as bonds or fixed-income securities. Over time, as policyholders continue to pay premiums, the cash value within these policies can grow. The cash value growth is tax-deferred, meaning policyholders will only owe taxes on the growth once they withdraw or surrender the policy. Insurers who invest money in the cash value account can withdraw portions or the whole money while alive through loans or a policy surrender.

These types are whole, universal, and variable. However, they are not investments like 401K and beyond, IRA, savings, or CD accounts. Withdrawing cash or taking out policy loans from the life insurance policy reduces the death benefit the survivor will receive and incur interest charges or fees.

Considering that the average cost of life insurance is about $2000 per year for a family of four, it is crucial to wonder whether it is worth it not to purchase good moments for fear of spending money that should have been left to survivors. My advice is to create a business with those $2000 and let the children run it as employees as they learn entrepreneurial lifestyle and financial independence. Until the business generates profits, parents could, when necessary, lend money to the business, which the children would pay back monthly or a set schedule. 

In summary, parents often feel obligated to sacrifice their happiness for the sake of their children or beneficiaries. Instead of enrolling in life insurance, I suggest creating a business with the money the parents would have used to pay the premiums. Providing for the future of our children is not about giving them gifts but ensuring they understand the value of work and self-worth.

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast

There is no doubt that healthcare is affordable to all Americans. However, such affordability is contingent on one’s income, meaning that the healthcare coverage individuals choose relates to how much money they are willing to pay, and the level of healthcare services they receive is based on the type of plans they elect. 

Healthcare coverage, also known as medical insurance or health insurance, helps individuals cover the costs of medical expenses. Americans obtain medical insurance policies through government or private insurance companies. 

There are different types of medical insurance plans. The most prevalent are employer-sponsored health insurance, the Health Insurance Marketplace, which was established under the Affordable Care Act, and government-funded programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The eligibility for either one is contingent on the beneficiary having an income or used to have an income. However, their affordability, availability, and reliability depend on how much the individuals are willing to pay, the employer’s contribution, or government subsidies. 

When signing up for medical insurance plans, Americans focus on three critical financial aspects: The first is premium, which is the amount an individual pays monthly, quarterly, or annually to the insurance company to maintain coverage. The second one is deductible, the amount an individual must pay out of pocket before the insurance company starts covering the costs. The third is copayment or copay, which is a fixed amount an individual pays for certain healthcare services after reaching the deductible. For example, if for a $3,000.00 hospital bill, the deductible is $1,000, the policy owner will pay the first $1000, and the insurance company will pay the hospital the remaining $2000. 

Thus, healthcare is a mandatory privilege because the law tells all Americans to pay a premium, copays, and deductibles to see doctors. Premium costs generate healthcare affordability and availability, meaning the higher the premiums, the quicker beneficiaries can receive care and the more extensive their Health Maintenance Organization or Preferred Provider Organization insurance plans. 

Affordability and availability in a medical insurance policy mean that individuals purchase a policy based on how much from their monthly paycheck they put toward remaining healthy. Two Americans may have the same income but have different insurance plans. Conversely, they may have different incomes, but the one with the lowest income may have purchased a higher premium, which may be based on age, family size, or pre-existing conditions. 

As of 2010, specifically under Obamacare, the government fines Americans without a healthcare plan. As such, healthcare became a burden on low-income families, who were then compelled to adjust their expenses to purchase premiums. Despite government subsidies, these Americans struggle to see doctors due to small networks and the ability to see specialists.  

The government forces healthcare coverage on all Americans.  Americans who do not have it must have it or pay a fine. When Americans no longer have the choice of not having something they don’t want to have, never wanted to have, or cannot financially afford; it is not a benefit or a right; it is a privilege.

In conclusion, considering that individuals must pay a premium, copays, and deductibles for healthcare, healthcare is neither a benefit nor a right but a mandatory privilege. It is so because eligibility is based on income. 

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast

This episode discusses three children’s books that promote woke teaching in schools, compel children to see racism in everything, and tell black children that white people are obstacles to black achievements. 

The books “Anti-Racist Baby,” “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness,” and “Our Skin: Our First Conversation about Race” drive black children to be woke about their skin color, peg black children against white children, and tell black children that white people are evil and will never let black people be successful. These books tell black children that white people are responsible for police brutality, racial injustice and black lives do not matter. 

These books overgeneralize behaviors, concluding that because a white person did that, all other white people did it and will do it too, no matter what.
“Anti-Racist Baby,” tells parents to begin raising their children to be anti-racists as toddlers; otherwise, they would grow up to be racists. According to the author, children are born racists and must be bred into becoming anti-racists. Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness depicts a white child looking at white police officers killing an unarmed black man. Simply, it shows white children what white people are doing to black people. 

I don’t know about you but to me, these books are promoting a divisive message. That message may make Black children feel inferior about their skin color or cancel white people because they may see them as oppressors. If white children read these books, they would either hate themselves, perpetuate the same patterns, or be scared of their black classmates, thinking they may take revenge on them. 

I consider these teachings rogue and inappropriate for early grade-school children. I foresee that they might scare black children forever, for they tell them that only miracles may make them succeed in this white-dominated world. These books divide, group, and categorize children based on skin, not based on the content of their character, as so well-pleaded by Martin Luther King. These books claim to provide the language necessary to begin critical conversations at the earliest ages. However, they give ammunition to black children to hate white children and to grow up hating all white people. They convince black children that their skin color dictates how white people treat them, the kind of neighborhoods they will welcome in, or the type of schools they can attend. 

In summary, the books “Anti-Racist Baby, Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness” and “Our Skin: Our First Conversation about Race” teach children about the complexities of racial injustice. They compel parents to raise anti-racist children because, according to the authors, children were born racists. They portray white people as selfish and oppressive and make black children believe they are inferior to their white classmates.

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast

My guest today is Mr. Cass Larry. Mr Cass is a political strategist for the Republican Party. Together, he and I discuss American elections as the cornerstone of democracy. Mr. Cass explains why elections matter, the requirements to vote and to run for political office as well as the notion of term limits. 

Hello Mr. Cass Larry and welcome to Apostrophe Podcast. My first question to you is: Why do elections matter.?
Hi Dr. Rousseau and thanks for having me. Elections help ensure that power passes in a peaceful, orderly manner from citizens to their elected representatives—and from one elected official to his or her successor. The U.S. Constitution gives certain powers to the national (or “federal”) government and reserves others for the individual states, and the people. In many countries, national governments set education and health policies, but in the U.S., the 50 states have primary responsibility in these areas. National defense and foreign policy are examples of federal responsibility. The Constitution requires that each state have a republican form of government, and it forbids states from violating certain specified rights. “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. But states otherwise retain considerable power. The American system can appear complicated, but it ensures that voters have a voice at all levels of government.

Mr. Cass, clearly elections give citizens a voice in their government in the most fundamental way by deciding who governs. In this case, who is eligible to vote in elections.?
When George Washington was elected as the first president in 1789, only 6 percent of the U.S. population could vote. In most of the original 13 states, only landowning men over the age of 21 had the right to vote.
Today, the American Constitution guarantees that all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 can vote in federal, state, and local elections.
The U.S. Constitution sets the requirements for holding federal office, but each of the 50 states has its own constitution and its own rules for state offices.
For example, governors in most states serve four- year terms, but in other states the governor is elected for only two years. Voters in some states elect judges, while in others judges are appointed to office. States and localities elect thousands of public officials— from governors and state legislators to school board members and even dogcatchers.
The only elected federal officials are the president and vice president, and members of Congress—the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 100 senators.

Thanks Mr. Cass, according to your answer, all Americans who are at least 18 years old can vote. That brings me to my next question “Can anyone run for political office.?
The American Constitution establishes the requirements for holding an elected federal office. To serve as president, one must be a natural- born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. A vice president must meet the same criteria. Under the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the vice president cannot have served two terms as president.
Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, have been U.S. citizens for seven years, and be legal residents of the state they seek to represent in Congress. U.S. Senate candidates must be at least 30, U.S. citizens for nine years, and legal residents of the state they wish to represent.

Excellent, when are elections held in the United States?

Elections for federal office are held in even-numbered years. The presidential election is held every four years and takes place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Elections for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are held every two years. Senators serve six-year terms that are staggered so that one-third of the 100 senate seats come up for election every two years. If a senator dies or becomes incapacitated while in office, a special election can be held in an odd-numbered year or in the next even-numbered year. The newly elected senator serves until the end of the original senator’s term. In some states, the governor appoints someone to serve the remainder of the original term.

Now Mr. Cass, what can you tell us about term limits? Better yet, how many times can a person be president.?

After George Washington, the first president, declined to run for a third term, many Americans believed that two terms in office were enough for any president. None of Washington’s successors sought a third term until 1940, when, at a time marked by the Great Depression and World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt sought, and won, a third presidential term. He won a fourth term in 1944 and died in office in 1945. Some people thought that was too long for one person to hold presidential power. So in 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which prohibits anyone from being elected president of the United States more than twice.

Mr. Cass, what about other political offices?
There are no term limits for members of Congress. Term limits, if any, for state and local officials are spelled out in state constitutions and local ordinances.
The two chambers of the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, have nearly equal powers, but their means of election are quite different.
The Founders of the American Republic intended members of the House of Representatives to be close to the public, reflecting the public’s wishes and ambitions. Therefore, the Founders designed the House to be relatively large to accommodate many members from small legislative districts and to have frequent elections; specifically, every two years.

Each of the 50 states is entitled to one seat in the House, with additional seats allocated according to population. Alaska, for example, has a very small population and therefore has only one U.S. representative. California, the most populous state, has 55. Every 10 years the U.S. Census is taken, and House seats are reallocated among the states based on the new population figures. Each state draws the boundaries of its congressional districts. States have considerable latitude in how they do this, so long as the number of citizens in each district is as close to equal as possible. Unsurprisingly, when one party controls the state government, it tries to draw the boundaries to the benefit of its own congressional candidates. The Senate was designed for its members to represent larger constituencies or an entire state, and to provide equal representation for each state, regardless of population. Thus, small states possess as much influence as large states in the Senate.

Thanks for your time Mr. Cass, let me recap what we have discussed so far.
Elections are an integral part of democracy, as they give citizens a say in who governs them in a peaceful, orderly manner, and to ensure that power passes from one elected official to the next in order to uphold democracy. The American Constitution outlines certain powers to be held by the federal government and others to be held by the states. Elections also require that each state has a government and forbids states from violating certain rights. To be eligible to vote or run for political office, citizens must meet certain requirements, and many states have term limits for elected officials. 

You are welcome Dr. Rousseau. It was an honor to chat with you.  
——
Reference: USA /// ELECTIONS /// IN BRIEF

Whether you describe yourself as smart, rich, honest, or genuine on your online dating profile, you will get no swipes right if you don’t look handsome or beautiful on your profile photo. It is because only your look or physical attraction, not your “About Me” will get you a first date, and ultimately, to first base. Dating apps users are wishing for something more significant than what they publish on their dating profile. 

Online daters do not care about “About Me” or profile description; they care about perceived looks and physical attractions. Thus to get “swipe right”, they spend ample time choosing the profile pictures that will attract people of all sexual orientation. Swiping left or right is about liking the looks, not about reading profiles. 

With that said, it is a lie when people write they are looking for friendship, something casual, long term or are DTF; what they are looking for is the hope that the one who catches their eyes online will look like the one they will meet in person. People who are on dating apps, whether males or females like or swipe right first and then they read later to find out if that person is not a psycho or a criminal, and to a certain extent; although many online daters would not mind, a transgender, an animal lover, or a 420-friendly. 

Whether they were DTF or looking to have fun, when the chemistry is amusing, exciting or when the date does not catfish, online daters keep the momentum to hope for lasting and meaningful relationships. They do not want to waste their time going out on dates over and over just for casual sex or friendship; they seek to crave and feel something genuine and consistent. 

In summary, online daters do not care about what others say they are or looking for; they swipe left or right based on profile photos. The better the users look on their pictures, the more “swipes right” they receive. Online daters seek something lasting and meaningful. Many people who said they were there to get some found love after they liked or swiped right on each other’s profile photos. 

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast 

This episode discusses how the government’s reasoning for classifying information could lead to potential abuse of power. It also suggests possible solutions for balancing transparency with national security concerns to promote trust and accountability in government.

The government creates distraction to shift public attention from one political issue onto another by releasing to the public certain types of information. However, they claim they were leaked or spilled and that the public was not supposed to know them. This is an effing lie. 

Under the banner of protecting public security and national defense, the government establishes a system of information classification to prevent the public from knowing some pertinent information. They claim that some information, such as military secrets, diplomatic negotiations, or intelligence sources are sensitive and if they are to be released, the country would be in danger or could lead to vulnerabilities or potential terrorist attacks on American institutions. 

When considering the leaks from Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and Jack Teixeira, it is easy to say that the government is not safeguarding and handling information effectively. Maybe, it is their poor handling of information they deemed confidential and classified that gave us 911, allowed Hillary Clinton to host a private email server in her living room, and Trump, Biden, and Pence to have classified information in their basement. 

Claiming of maintaining peace and stability, the government labels as classified or for official use only information that the public should know, for example, the causes of the 911 attacks, the origin of COVID-19, and whether the 2020 election was stolen. 

It is hard to believe and trust a government that lacks transparency and intentionally hides the truth from its people. Classifying information on an “on the need to know” basis or making them sensitive is more about control than national security and national defense. Such a practice hinders democracy and solidifies the government’s political power and interests. The government weaponizes withheld information to manipulate its allies, intimidate foreign opponents, and create dependency of third world countries on America. Moreover, it hides certain information to auction them up to news outlets that publish them to create public panic, false propaganda, and divisive political discourse. 

Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Apostrophe Podcast