19 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-13-21

  1. Good point.

    This is why they hide the adverse effect info from the public by saying your FOIA request will take years to answer. By then, the damage will be done.

    “If the Vaccine Is So Great, Why Are So Many People Dropping Dead?”


    “The COVID-19 vaccines appear to be causing a global health disaster. There are so many warnings from all around the world. I’ll list just a few in this column. But the U.S. media remains silent. They’re as quiet as a church mouse. Why?

    Japan’s Ministry of Health just announced that “the Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines could cause heart-related side effects in younger males.” Health experts in Japan have witnessed skyrocketing rates of myocarditis and pericarditis in young men and teenagers. And they’ve seen the same nonstop heart issues with middle-aged and older individuals.

    All over America, and all over the world, cardiac arrest, heart inflammation and heart attack deaths are exploding. Young athletes are dropping right on the field; star soccer players in Europe are dropping dead in the middle of games; referees, coaches and even fans in the stands are having cardiac emergencies. It’s something no one has ever seen before. It’s an epidemic.

    What do all these victims have in common? They’ve all been vaccinated.

    In America, the media is filled with reports of hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units overwhelmed with seriously ill patients. From coast to coast, there are so many sick people lined up that there aren’t enough beds or nurses. Sick patients are lying on gurneys along the hallways. Doctors and medical experts call it a “mystery” why so many Americans are sick. They can’t understand what’s happening.

    But I can solve the mystery. I believe that these are COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries overwhelming ERs and ICUs. The very illnesses that are most prevalent in this mysterious health emergency — heart attack deaths, cardiac arrest, strokes, blood clots, multiple organ failure — are all the same COVID-19 vaccine side effects listed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

    What a coincidence.

    But it’s not just in the USA. It’s happening everywhere. In the U.K., the Evening Standard newspaper reports up to 300,000 British citizens are facing sudden heart related illness and cardiac arrest.

    U.K. medical experts are blaming PPSD — “post-pandemic stress disorder.” Three hundred thousand Brits aren’t dying and crippled from the vaccine. Of course not. They’re all nuts. It’s all in their heads.

    These brainwashed Kool-Aid drinkers can’t see what’s right in front of their faces. Or perhaps doctors, scientists and researchers are too afraid of losing their medical licenses, or losing multimillion-dollar government grants, to speak up.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A terrible use of National Guard resources. The hospitals are in a crisis of their own making – they are ignoring the science and embracing the lies of the creators of the Fauci/China virus.

    What they need to do is re-hire the health care providers and entrust them with their own health decisions.


    “At least four states in recent weeks have called in members of the National Guard to deal with health care staffing issues amid COVID-19 vaccine mandates for hospital and nursing home workers.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Civilizational Suicide, Not Omicron, Is Killing Us”


    “Last week in this space, I included a few words about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s remarkable new book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. I also included a link to Kennedy’s appearance on “Tucker Carlson Today.”

    It was a remarkable exchange and I commend both the book and the interview to your attention. I disagree with Kennedy about various things, including the efficacy of vaccines in general, but his assessment of the highest-paid employee of the federal government, Anthony Fauci, is worth the price of admission.

    As I remarked a couple of weeks ago, I thought I had done writing about COVID. Surely, I thought, the hysteria is on the wane. Most people are rational. They know that the flimsy porous masks you see everywhere are useless tokens of conformity. They understand that the disease is serious for only a tiny part of the population. They also know staying home and practicing “social distancing” has its own liabilities, not least of which is a diminution in the potency of one’s immune response.

    Unfortunately, the people making the rules are not “most people.” They are bureaucrats being advised by public health “experts” like Anthony Fauci who has demonstrated ostentatious incompetence at least since the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. When news of the so-called Omicron variant first surfaced a few weeks back, I assumed the fact that doctors first described it as very contagious but also with symptoms that were “very mild,” meant the “experts” would let us get on with our lives.

    Fat chance. It’s not just the old Rahm Emanuel wheeze of never letting a crisis go to waste. It’s also a matter of fabricating crises where none exist because emergencies justify emergency powers, and emergency powers mean that you can push ahead with your agenda on all fronts using the fake crisis as justification for bending or discarding the rules.

    So, even as Fauci warns that it is a matter of “when not if” the definition of “fully vaccinated” will change to include at least one who-knows-how-many booster shots, the CEO of Pfizer, dollar signs in his eyes, has already said that a fourth jab may be needed “sooner than expected” because of the Omicron variant.

    New York City is once again flirting with lockdown, stiffening various protocols and prohibitions. And the United Kingdom, having rolled out “Plan B” which imposes new quarantine rules, mask mandates, and work-from-home rules, is contemplating an even more stringent “Plan C.”

    Meanwhile, the World Health Organization reports that it has documented zero deaths from the Omicron variant of the world’s most popular virus.

    Yes, you read that correctly. “[W]e have not had any deaths reported,” but of course it’s early days yet and “this may change.”

    Still, it makes one think. And it’s worth noting that the CDC, ever eager to ratchet up the seriousness of COVID, has nevertheless made a similar report. Its latest data, from early December, indicate that “there were no documented deaths from Omicron during that period.”

    There are a lot of cases attributed to Omicron, but so what? The number of people who “test positive” for COVID is a meaningless data point. The new variant showed up first in South Africa, but Dr. Angelique Coetzee, the chair of the South African Medical Association, cautions against overstating its seriousness. “Let me be clear: nothing I have seen about this new variant warrants the extreme action the UK government has taken in response to it.” Why? “No one here in South Africa is known to have been [hospitalized] with the Omicron variant, nor is anyone here believed to have fallen seriously ill with it.”

    Early on in our experience of Wuhanomania, many commentators, including me, noted the pertinence of Farr’s Law in understanding the behavior of the “novel coronavirus.” William Farr’s name has receded from the commentary on the disease, but the pertinence of his model has not. Epidemics, Farr noted in 1840, follow a predictable bell-curve-like course. They are born, rise in virulence, and then recede. They do this with or without human intervention.

    As I noted at the time:

    Our panic has destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, impoverished millions, and handed much of society over to the machinations of socialistically inclined bureaucrats. It has also precipitated a huge and irresponsible disgorging of federal funds, the baneful effects of which will be felt for decades if not generations.

    That was in April 2020.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Biden’s America folks.

    How did the R’s ever let this fraud slide thru?

    Because US Attorneys are supposed to threaten the press, right?

    ““And you know what I’ll do? I’ll call the police and make an allegation. And we’ll see how that works with you.””


    “The new Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins is a woman of the far left, who fits in perfectly with Elizabeth Warren and Ayanna Pressley, both of whom supported her candidacy.

    In January, she was approached by reporters who just wanted to ask her some questions, but she acted like she was being ambushed and threatened to call the police on them.

    Timothy Nerozzi reports at FOX News:

    New Biden US Attorney Rollins threatens reporters in tirade, resurfaced video shows: ‘You know what I’ll do?’

    In the video from January 2021, Rollins accused journalists of risking the lives of her children after a reporter requested an interview near her home, video shows. The film crew, who work for Fox-affiliate Boston 25 News, asked Rollins if she would be willing to answer questions. Rollins, who became visibly upset, demanded to know how the reporters knew where she lived, to which they informed her it is a matter of public record.

    “So as a Black woman, in this moment in this country, you’re going to put my @#$$#$# house on screen?” Rollins asked the reporter. At no point in the video is Rollins’ house shown.

    “No, no, no, ma’am, we’re just here approaching you to ask you a question,” the reporter replied, according to the video.

    “Get away from my family. Speak to me at my job. If I get hurt or harmed because of this, you are on the record for that, or my kids are @#%$#%%$ killed,” Rollins told the journalists in the parking lot near her house. “Who do you think you are? This is private property. Get out of here!”…

    Rollins threatened to call the police on the Boston 25 News team, saying, “And you know what I’ll do? I’ll call the police and make an allegation. And we’ll see how that works with you.”


    But show up at her house, you know, like lefties do to R politicians all the time, and she’ll have you arrested.


  5. Finally…..

    Someone is actually thinking of the children, for a change.

    “The Left Goes Nuts as the Supreme Court Seems to Signal That Their Monopoly on Propagandizing Kids Is at an End”


    “It has been a critical couple of weeks for the nation in the US Supreme Court. Last week, the Supreme Court heard the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case involves a Mississippi law that is a direct, head-on challenge to the pro-abort Roe legal regime. In that argument, it appeared there were five solid and six probable votes to strike down both Roe and Casey (read Justice Thomas Tears Into Pro-Abortion Lawyers With Hard Opening Questions for more color commentary). This week, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to Texas’s heartbeat law; see Supreme Court Humiliates Biden, Refuses to Stop Texas Heartbeat Law, and Gorsuch and the Wise Latina Have a Public Spat. All in all, it looks as though abortion may cease to be a federal issue.

    Perhaps just as critical to the nation’s future was Carson v. Makin. That case addressed whether a state can subsidize private school tuition and expressly forbid religious schools to participate in the program. You can read my take at this post: Supreme Court Seems Ready to Nuke Maine’s Law Discriminating Against Religious Schools.

    While there was general wailing about the bum’s rush given the noble and Holy status of abortion, some of the most hyperbolic rhetoric was directed at the Maine school-choice case. This is how the always entertaining Ian Milhiser of Vox.com sees school choice. Headline: The Supreme Court appears really eager to force taxpayers to fund religious education. Subhead: Carson v. Makin appears likely to end in another transformative victory for the religious right.

    All six of the Court’s Republican appointees appeared to think that this exclusion for religious schools is unconstitutional — meaning that Maine would be required to pay for tuition at pervasively religious schools. Notably, that could include schools that espouse hateful worldviews. According to the state, one of the plaintiff families in Carson wants the state to pay for a school that requires teachers to sign a contract stating that “the Bible says that ‘God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted’” and that “[s]uch deviation from Scriptural standards is grounds for termination.’”

    In the likely event that these plaintiffs’ families prevail, that will mark a significant escalation in the Court’s decisions benefiting the religious right — even if the Court limits the decision narrowly to Maine’s situation. Shortly after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republicans a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, the Court handed down a revolutionary decision holding that people of faith may seek broad exemptions from the laws that apply to anyone else. But the Court has historically been more reluctant to require the government to tax its citizens and spend that money on religion.
    That reluctance may very well be gone.

    At Slate, noted legal eagle and martial arts expert (he’s broken several bones in his years of study, donchaknow?) Mark Joseph Stern cries Armageddon-like a rabid gerbil was crawling around…well, we won’t go there. The headline there is The Supreme Court’s New Religious Liberty Case Could Destroy Public Education with an over-the-top subhead that reads A conservative supermajority may soon force states to fund Christian schools that indoctrinate students with hate.

    Factually, it is literally impossible for a Christian school to indoctrinate students with hate. If a school teaches “hate,” it is, by definition, not Christian. But that is a different post.

    After a year of nationwide panic over what’s taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument in Carson v. Makin deserves more attention. The questions posed in the case have major ramifications for the engineered hysteria over critical race theory, as well as the general dismay many Americans feel over the kind of education they’re subsidizing with their tax dollars. Carson v. Makin asks whether the First Amendment compels individuals of every faith to help finance the indoctrination of children by conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, and liberal Christians. This pedagogy is so extreme, so divisive and fanatical, that it makes critical race theory look like Blue’s Clues. Yet the Supreme Court will almost certainly force taxpayers to subsidize these harmful teachings, no matter how gravely it violates their own sincerely held moral and religious beliefs.

    Public education is a bedrock of American democracy. A bad decision in Espinoza would shake the foundation of the nation’s education system, spurning the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance. The Christian schools that would receive a windfall from Maine operate as prejudice academies, instructing students to hate people who are different from them. They reject equality in favor of intolerance, preaching a fundamentalist ideology that’s incompatible with multicultural democracy.

    And let’s be clear: The overwhelming majority of institutions that will benefit from these decisions are Christian. Although the plaintiffs here appeal to gauzy abstractions about religious pluralism, it’s almost always Christian parents and Christian schools seeking public money. Most parochial schools in the United States are Christian because most people in the United States are Christian. Carson is not about religious pluralism. It’s about empowering the majority religion to use the machinery of the state to establish its supremacy at the literal expense of nonbelievers.

    At the heart of Carson lies a rejection of public education as we know it—an insistence that the government engages in noxious discrimination when it demands secular instruction in publicly funded schools. This idea, taken to its extreme, would obligate states to spend as much money on religious schools as it does on public schools, essentially destroying the public school system. SCOTUS might not take this leap in Carson, but it will transfer millions of dollars to Christian schools that will use it to teach hatred of minority groups. And by normalizing bigoted ideas, it will undermine a guiding principle of public schooling in America for more than a century: the proposition that every student deserves an education that prepares them to participate equally in democracy.

    Anytime the left is moved to this sort of fecal incontinence, you know you are at a pressure point near and dear to them.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Of course they are. And of course Joe Biden does nothing about it.

    “Report: U.S. Universities Cooperating With Institutions Tied To China’s Military, Nuclear Weapons Program

    Beijing “exploited the expertise of Chinese students … conducting research in the United States to accelerate China’s economic and military modernization.””


    “Many U.S. universities are cooperating with academic institutions embedded within Communist China’s military and nuclear weapons program, a report published this week warns.

    “Dozens of U.S. universities maintain ties to Chinese universities that conduct defense research in support of Beijing’s military buildup, including work related to the country’s nuclear weapons program,” the NBC News reported, citing the study titled “The Middle Kingdom Meets Higher Education” published by the the DC-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

    Confucius Institute: Beijing’s Trojan Horse
    The primary tool of China’s infiltration on U.S. college campuses are the Beijing-funded Confucius Institutes, the 68-page report authored by FDD’s Adjunct Fellow Craig Singleton found.

    The report vindicates the position taken by former President Donald Trump’s administration, which took measures to weed out these Beijing-controlled institutes from U.S. universities.

    In August 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described the Confucius Institutes operating at U.S. campuses as “an entity advancing Beijing’s global propaganda and malign influence.” These institutes were working to recruit “spies and collaborators” at American campuses, Pompeo warned.

    Following the tough stance taken by the Trump State Department, the number of Confucius Institutes have dropped from 113 in 2018 to 28 in 2021. The FDD report concludes that the “CI closures have significantly eroded malign Chinese influence on college campuses.”

    Even after their closure, the nefarious influence of CIs could be a lasting one, the report revealed:

    Worryingly, a CI closure often does not result in the severance of ties between the U.S. university that hosted the CI and the Chinese sister university that supported its programming. Following at least 28 of the 79 documented CI closures between 2018 and 2021, the relevant U.S. university continued or expanded its relationship with its Chinese sister university. With a few exceptions, these Chinese universities provide direct, documented support to China’s military-industrial complex. (Page 20)

    The CIs are not the only mechanism used by China to scout for military-relevant technologies on U.S. campuses. According the report, “U.S. universities often have separate, mandatory contractual agreements with their CCP-selected Chinese sister universities. Over time, U.S. universities frequently establish separate collaborative agreements with additional Chinese universities, including ones supporting China’s defense establishment.”

    The CCP’s Spying on U.S. Research
    China is weaponizing academic enrollment by dispatching Chinese students to acquire cutting-edge civil and defense technologies, the report disclosed:

    Beijing has openly exploited the expertise of Chinese students and scholars studying or conducting research in the United States to accelerate China’s economic and military modernization. Beijing’s efforts include sponsoring promising Chinese students and scholars in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields at U.S. and foreign universities, with the understanding that these individuals will return home to provide the technology and talent Beijing needs to compete with the United States. (Page 14-15)

    Xi Jinping’s Military-Civil Fusion Strategy
    The report also highlighted the threat posed by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitious Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) strategy, which gives the country’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sweeping powers to use Chinese investments, companies, and academic institutions to get its hands on cutting-edge innovations taking place in the United States.

    The Military-Civil Fusion aims to make the “People’s Liberation Army into a ‘world-class military’ and leading the world in emerging and disruptive technologies by 2049 as core national goals for China,” The CD-based National Bureau of Asian Research says.

    The strategy has enabled the PLA to penetrate deep inside the U.S. academic landscape. The FDD report found that “[o]f the 28 universities currently hosting a CI, 10 maintain sister-university relationships with Chinese universities directly supporting China’s [Military-Civil Fusion] program and/or China’s broader defense establishment.” “

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Good question. I’m sure they’ll do the honorable and right thing…..


    Never happen.

    “Will New York Times, Washington Post return Pulitzer for misleading Russia collusion stories?

    This is not the first time the prize was awarded for misleading and discredited coverage”


    “In 2018, journalists from The New York Times and The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize in national reporting for their biased and inaccurate coverage of Russia’s alleged collaboration with the Trump campaign to interfere with the 2016 election, a claim we now know was a hoax. So when are they going to return the prize?

    If this sounds familiar, it should. This is not the first time the prize – which is supposed to recognize outstanding achievement and public service in journalism – was awarded for misleading and discredited coverage.

    In 1931, The New York Times published 13 articles by its Moscow reporter and Communist sympathizer, Walter Duranty, praising the Soviet Union and dictator Joseph Stalin’s government. These articles relied solely on official Soviet communist sources, ignored the evidence contradicting the government’s propaganda, and covered up the genocide Stalin was committing in the Ukraine.

    Consequentially, Duranty’s work was explicitly and knowingly misleading. Columbia University history professor Mark von Hagen said in 2003 that Duranty was “a disgrace in the history of the New York Times.”

    Throughout the series, Duranty glorified Stalin’s policies and peddled Soviet propaganda. Most notably, he rejected reports by fellow journalists describing the catastrophic consequences of collectivization.

    Beginning in 1929, the Soviet Union’s collectivization policy replaced private farms with large state-owned cooperatives. In the face of resistance from Ukrainian subsistence farmers, Stalin forcibly drove farmers off their land and deported 50,000 farm families to Siberia.

    Because of the Ukrainians’ rebellion, Stalin purposefully set unrealistic grain quotas and, when farmers failed to meet those quotas, confiscated all of the grain and the food produced in the region. By 1933, the man-made famine had killed millions of Ukrainians who starved to death. Some even resorted to cannibalism.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence of mass starvation in Ukraine, Duranty denied it was occurring. “Conditions are bad,” he conceded, “but there is no famine.” His reaction to the forced collectivization and genocidal policies of Stalin was “to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

    Duranty’s deceptive articles purposefully exalted the Soviet Union and a murderous dictator, what Professor von Hagen called an “uncritical acceptance of the Soviet self-justification for its cruel and wasteful regime,” ignoring the absolute brutality of Soviet policies. Even the New York Times finally admitted in an editorial in 1990 that his articles were “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.”

    Ukrainian American organizations continually requested that the Pulitzer Prize board repeal Duranty’s award because of his false reporting, resulting in two distinct investigations.

    But the Pulitzer board refused to withdraw the award, most recently in 2003.

    While the board admitted that there were substantial problems with Duranty’s reporting, it refused to revoke the award because “all principals are dead and unable to respond.” Apparently, concerns regarding an obvious lack of journalistic integrity are illegitimate once enough time has passed.

    Today, the New York Times and the Pulitzer Prize board have fallen into a similar scenario.

    In a series of 10 articles, Times reporters propagated a narrative detailing fictitious connections between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, the president’s transition team, and the administration.

    The Mueller investigation as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed that there is no evidence that President Trump or his staff conspired with the Russian government to impact the 2016 election. Special Counsel John Durham is now indicting some of those who were involved in creating what amounted to a political hoax that dogged the Trump administration for years.

    Despite these findings, and the inaccuracies in the Times’ articles, the Pulitzer Prize board has not repealed the award. (Note that all principals are alive and perfectly capable of responding.)”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. They believed it because they wanted it to be true. Just like above with the NYT.













    They’re garbage.


  9. But now the same fraudulent media hacks above want you to just move on and forget how badly they suck at real journalism.

    “Jussie Smollett, ‘lest we forget”


    “Now that entertainer and Obama White House star Jussie Smollett has been convicted on multiple counts of faking an anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Trump hate crime against himself, what do we hear?

    We hear a predictable chorus from Woke Media World:

    Let it go. Forget it. Leave it alone. Yes, he’s guilty. And that’s a good thing. But let’s never speak of Jussie again. The mention of his name vexes us. Hush. Please, just let it go.

    Really? Let it go? Just forget about it?

    I ask you, cui bono, who profits by not speaking of Smollett again? Who profits by pretending this didn’t happen?

    The politicians who joined him in screaming about hate crimes and lynching. And media that carried Smollett’s hateful and dangerous hoax. They profit by your forgetting.

    But the public doesn’t profit by letting it go. The rule of law does not profit. Confidence in our system of justice isn’t strengthened by forgetting. It is weakened by forgetting.

    The high priests of grievances would rather we just let Smollett go away, because he failed in epic, Homeric fashion. And now he embarrasses them.

    But not everyone is so gullible. Not everyone wants to stick their idiotic head in the sand.

    One woman stood up. And with all the talk and all the voices going round and round the Jussie Smollett saga, and with some telling you to forget it and move on, and others shaking their fists at the wrong clowns in this clown show, it would be a shame if you didn’t remember her:

    Retired Judge Sheila O’Brien.

    Her dad was a cop. Her mother was a nurse. They raised her to not let things go. O’Brien is the one who heroically pushed for a special prosecutor in the Smollett case, incurring the wrath of the political class. And about an hour after the guilty verdict, after I was done playing talking head on TV, I called her.

    “John, it’s not about me,” O’Brien said. “Twelve people did their job and upheld their oaths as jurors, as a testament to our system of justice. It was never about me. It was about our system of justice. The law demanded a special prosecutor. The court did the right thing, and a jury fulfilled their oath”

    But she forced the issue. She demanded an accounting. If you care about the criminal justice system, if you don’t think politics should put its greasy thumb on the scales of justice, if you believe half the crap you see on those television courtroom dramas when some actor makes The Big Speech about Big Justice, you won’t forget.

    You’ll remember her.

    Sheila O’Brien.

    Naturally, there are others who desperately want to forget. It’s all been so embarrassing. Although, those who are most acutely mortified by Smollett’s conviction–at least those in media who have half their wits—have the good manners not to tell us to shut up and forget.

    Instead, they ignore it and change the subject, hoping Jussie goes away and disappears. Or they pick up some other head to fix on their rattle sticks, and shake it and scream about demons to direct public anger elsewhere.

    In this, like that gluttonous little boy ostentatiously ignoring the crumbly remains of the blueberry pie he attacked before dinner.

    Forgive me, but I’d rather not shut up about Jussie right now. Instead, I think we should thank him. Because by telling and retelling his lies in court, by perjuring himself before the jury and the judge, he’s actually done America a great service.

    He exposes he fetid alchemy between the dying corporate legacy media and elite Democrats who used his mewing to stoke racial division for votes. These are the high priests of the new religion, and it sanctifies victimization for profit and power.

    They falsely seized on Kyle Rittenhouse as a racist (he wasn’t) and Nicholas Sandman as a racist (he wasn’t) and many others. Without stoking racial strife, how would they motivate their voters?

    Are there horrible people among us who are homophobes and racists? Yes, of course. Should they be punished if they violate another’s rights? Yes, of course.

    Should the politicians and media that stoked this have known better than to buy his story and regurgitate it, screaming on media platform after media platform with their hair on fire? A reasonable person might think so.

    But they didn’t care if they regurgitated a lie. They wanted to use Smollett. They didn’t care if he was lying. They weren’t worried about the damage it could cause, whether his fantastic story may have sparked racial violence in Chicago and elsewhere across the country.

    They had their politics to worry about. They wanted outrage. They wanted votes. So, they used him. And he used them.

    And now that Smollett has been exposed as a liar by a jury in Chicago, they’d much rather we move on, before we can explore this destructive alchemy of the media/political elite and the damage it has done.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. These are the people that divide America with their lies and false allegations. They do it with impunity, because the media never call them on it.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Darn those evil Jews!

    (shakes fist at sky)

    “Gaza boy, 11, becomes 6,000th child saved by Israeli humanitarian group”

    “Save a Child’s Heart works to improve pediatric cardiac care in developing countries. 50 percent of its patients are Palestinian children from the Gaza Strip and West Bank.”


    “Mazen, an 11-year-old boy from the Gaza Strip, this month became the 6,000th child saved by the Israeli humanitarian organization Save a Child’s Heart (SACH), with support from the German foundation Ein Herz für Kinder.

    Shortly after Mazen was born, doctors in Gaza diagnosed him with a complicated congenital heart condition that would require multiple medical procedures. As Mazen grew older, he began having difficulty breathing. To survive, he needed emergency surgery.”

    Liked by 2 people

  12. You would think so, but apparently…




  13. Like

  14. The idiots run things now.

    But no mean tweets!

    And that’s what’s most important….



  15. Like I said, the idiots run things now.



  16. ——-


  17. Make no mistake about it…Polis wants to be King for another term when we vote next year. He mandated masks in our state. And he issued a statement later (guess he made some local dictators mad) saying he supported local leaders who take steps like mask mandates to mitigate the spread of the virus, and was only talking about state-level officials. The statement also encouraged mask-wearing and vaccinations. Yep…he’s no hero…he’s a politician….and not a good one. We have great memories some of us. We still recall his words “wear the damn mask”…

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.