Accountability

Evil needs to be held accountable for what they have done to us.

Wes

Posted in Editorial | 17 Comments

Grok Analysis of the JFK Files

The JFK files released on March 18, 2025, consist of approximately 80,000 pages of previously classified documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. These files were made public under President Donald Trump’s directive issued on March 17, 2025, in accordance with Executive Order 14176, and are now accessible through the National Archives, either online or in person at their College Park, Maryland facility. Based on initial reviews and expert commentary, here’s what appears relevant from the release:

  1. No Major Revelations on the Assassination Itself: Scholars and historians, as reported across multiple sources, indicate that these documents do not contain groundbreaking evidence that fundamentally alters the established narrative from the Warren Commission—that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The files do not seem to provide definitive proof of conspiracy theories, such as direct CIA involvement or a second shooter, despite long-standing public speculation.
  2. Context on Oswald’s Activities: The documents shed additional light on Oswald’s movements and interactions prior to the assassination. This includes details about his visit to Mexico City in September 1963, where he contacted the Soviet and Cuban embassies, as well as CIA surveillance of those activities. While this adds context to his profile, it does not appear to contradict the lone gunman conclusion.
  3. Cold War Intelligence Insights: A significant portion of the files relates to intelligence operations during the Cold War, including CIA efforts to monitor Soviet and Cuban activities, assassination plots against Fidel Castro, and propaganda operations. Some documents reveal previously redacted names of CIA sources and methods, such as the use of fluoroscopic scanning to detect listening devices, but these are more relevant to historical intelligence practices than to the assassination itself.
  4. Agency Dynamics and Communication Failures: The files highlight communication breakdowns between agencies like the FBI and CIA, which were previously noted but are now further documented. For example, an FBI memo from J. Edgar Hoover on November 24, 1963, shortly after Oswald’s death, reflects the chaos and urgency of the moment but does not shift the core findings.
  5. Kennedy Family and Public Reaction: The release has drawn mixed responses. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised it as a step toward transparency, while Jack Schlossberg, JFK’s grandson, criticized it as politicizing his grandfather’s legacy without adding meaningful insight. Public sentiment, as reflected in some commentary, sees it as a “nothing burger” in terms of resolving conspiracy theories.
  6. Scope and Limitations: While billed as a “full release” of previously withheld records, some caveats remain. About 2,400 newly identified FBI documents were included, but roughly 500 records (e.g., tax-related or court-sealed documents) were not subject to this declassification. Additionally, not all files are fully digitized yet, meaning analysis is ongoing.

In summary, the relevance of the March 18, 2025, JFK files lies more in their historical detail—offering a deeper look at Cold War-era intelligence and Oswald’s background—than in providing a dramatic rethinking of the assassination. For those expecting bombshells, the consensus so far is that the release reinforces, rather than challenges, the official account, though researchers will continue to sift through the voluminous material for subtler insights.

Posted in Editorial | 10 Comments

It Is Our Duty

Posted in Editorial | 13 Comments

18 Secret Service Agents for Hunter Biden

From Grok concerning the number of secret service agents at the Butler, PA Trump rally where he was shot:

After the incident, Trump’s security was elevated to presidential-level protection, suggesting the initial detail may have been smaller than what followed. Based on the available data, a conservative estimate would place the Secret Service presence directly assigned to Trump’s protection at the rally between 10 and 20 agents, including the close-protection detail, countersnipers, and advance team, though this excludes the broader support from local law enforcement (e.g., 30–40 Pennsylvania State Police troopers and Butler County units).

From Grok concerning the number of secret service agent assigned to Jill Biden at an address in Pittsburgh, PA on the same day as the Butler, PA rally where Trump was shot:

Jill Biden spoke at an Italian Sons and Daughters of America dinner at Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh, an indoor event with approximately 300–400 attendees, occurring around the same time as Trump’s rally, roughly 50 miles away. Reports suggest a significant Secret Service presence was assigned to her event, but exact figures vary. A whistleblower disclosure, cited by Senator Chuck Grassley in a letter to Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, alleged that communications from July 11, 2024, indicated 12 Secret Service “post-standers” (agents assigned to fixed positions) were allocated to Biden’s Pittsburgh event, compared to only 3 for Trump’s rally. This claim, reported by outlets like American Military News and amplified on X, has not been officially confirmed or denied by the Secret Service in public records.

During a July 22, 2024, congressional hearing, then-Director Cheatle faced questions from Representative William Timmons about reports that the Pittsburgh Secret Service field office sent “four times” as many additional agents to Biden’s event as to Trump’s. Cheatle neither confirmed nor denied the specific 12-to-3 ratio, stating that the total personnel allocated to both events were “comparable to the risk” assessed, and that Trump’s rally had “significantly more assets and resources” overall. She emphasized that no resources were diverted from Trump’s detail to Biden’s, countering speculation of reallocation. However, she did not provide a precise number of agents assigned to Biden, leaving the exact figure unclear.

(emphasis mine in the above information).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why did Hunter and Ashley Biden have any secret service agents assigned to them? Why did the new head of secret service allow this to happen? Why is there no audit of the assignation of secret services agents to specific people based on the release of Hunter Biden’s contingent?

Posted in Editorial | 1 Comment

Funding Wars in the Middle East and Terrorism across the World

Posted in Editorial | 2 Comments

Excellent

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

No More Secret Service for You

Posted in Editorial | 14 Comments

U.S. Central Command, has placed all U.S. bases in the Middle East on war alert

Posted in Editorial | 19 Comments

Why Bondi Has Not Charged Anyone

Posted in Editorial | 21 Comments

With Representation Like This, Why Even Have a Government?

Posted in Editorial | 8 Comments

Trump Announces the Release of the JFK Files

Posted in Editorial | 11 Comments

LabCorp and Grok

One disturbing thing about retirement is the cost of healthcare. I pay more for health insurance than before I went on Medicare. I also pay more for doctor visits and tests as I suspect the bills are just padded for government reimbursement.

I was getting my blood work at the doctor’s office and noticed that the cost went up so I went back to the county clinic where the cost is less than half the price for the same laboratory and labwork. In the past, the results were sent to me and the doctor. Now the results are sent to the doctor. I asked and was told that I had to bring a self-addressed, stamped envelope. I then asked about the small sign in the lobby and was told that Labcorp has an online service. I asked about that and was given a pamphlet.

When I made my account at Labcorp, the results came up and I could download the report in a PDF. The report had both the current results and the results from my last test. I uploaded the PDF to Grok and asked for an analysis.

The analysis was thorough and better than what the doctor changes me. Here is a portion:

Key Observations by Category

1. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)

  • Current Result: 6.8% (Flag: High)
  • Previous Result: 11.8% (10/22/2024)
  • Reference Interval: 4.8–5.6%

Notes:

  • Prediabetes: 5.7–6.4%, Diabetes: >6.4%, Glycemic control goal for diabetics: <7.0%.
  • The current HbA1c of 6.8% indicates diabetes. It’s just above the glycemic control target of <7.0% for adults with diabetes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I asked Grok the following question since I had researched A1C levels a few years back:

What is a good A1C for a 68 year old male for a lower risk of heart attack?

From Grok:

For a 68-year-old male, the “ideal” Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level to lower the risk of heart attack depends on individual health factors, but general guidelines from medical organizations can provide a framework. HbA1c reflects average blood sugar levels over the past 2-3 months and is closely linked to cardiovascular risk, especially in older adults where diabetes and heart disease often intersect. Here’s an analysis based on current medical understanding:

General Guidelines

  • Non-Diabetic Range: An HbA1c of 4.8–5.6% is considered normal for people without diabetes. For a 68-year-old male without diabetes, staying within or near this range minimizes cardiovascular risk associated with elevated blood sugar.
  • Prediabetes Range: 5.7–6.4%. This indicates a higher risk of developing diabetes and a modest increase in cardiovascular risk, though not as pronounced as with diabetes.
  • Diabetes Control: For adults with diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends a target of <7.0% for most individuals to reduce complications, including cardiovascular events. However, this target can be adjusted based on age and health status.

Age-Specific Considerations

  • For older adults (e.g., 68 years old), guidelines like those from the ADA and the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) suggest a slightly more lenient HbA1c target to balance benefits and risks (e.g., hypoglycemia). A common recommendation for healthy older adults with diabetes is 7.0–7.5%, especially if they have few comorbidities and a life expectancy exceeding 10 years.
  • If there are significant health issues (e.g., heart disease, kidney problems, or frailty), a target of 7.5–8.0% might be safer to avoid hypoglycemia, which can strain the heart.

HbA1c and Heart Attack Risk

  • Lower HbA1c and Cardiovascular Benefit: Studies show that HbA1c levels below 7.0% are associated with reduced risk of microvascular complications (e.g., eye, kidney damage) and may lower macrovascular risks (e.g., heart attack, stroke) in the long term. For example, the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found that each 1% reduction in HbA1c reduced heart attack risk by about 14% in younger diabetic patients.
  • Older Adults: In older populations, the relationship is less straightforward. A 2019 study in JAMA Network Open suggested a U-shaped curve for mortality and cardiovascular events in seniors—levels below 6.5% or above 8.0% were linked to higher risks. For a 68-year-old, an HbA1c around 6.5–7.0% might optimize heart attack risk reduction while avoiding hypoglycemia.
  • Your Lab Report Context: Your HbA1c is 6.8%, which is just below the 7.0% threshold. Combined with elevated lipids (e.g., LDL 154 mg/dL), keeping HbA1c at or below 6.8% could help lower heart attack risk.

What’s “Good” for a 68-Year-Old Male?

  • Optimal for Lower Heart Attack Risk: 6.5–7.0%. This range aligns with good glycemic control, reduces cardiovascular strain from high blood sugar, and is practical for a healthy 68-year-old without excessive hypoglycemia risk.
  • Individualized Target: If you have existing heart disease, a slightly higher target (e.g., 7.0–7.5%) might be safer, as aggressive lowering below 6.5% hasn’t consistently shown added heart attack prevention in older adults and could increase hypoglycemia-related stress on the heart.

Conclusion

For a 68-year-old male aiming to lower heart attack risk, an HbA1c of 6.5–7.0% is a solid target if you’re relatively healthy, as it balances glycemic control with safety. Your current 6.8% is close to this, suggesting you’re on the right track, but maintaining or slightly lowering it could optimize heart health. Discuss this with your doctor to tailor it to your specific health profile—age, diabetes duration, and heart risk factors matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My point is that we can save money for the same test from the same laboratory, download the information and get a free, thorough analysis. As shown here, Grok missed the appropriate level for A1C for my age but that was expected based on my previous experience at the doctor’s office.

Posted in Editorial | 16 Comments

AI Chip Production

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

I Want One

Posted in Editorial | 6 Comments

Not the Way Civil Service Was Supposed to Be

Posted in Editorial | 4 Comments