content for courtesy of

spread the word

The No Times
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc.
(protected political speech and personal opinion)

- If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom -


2021-01-31 c

Pfizer Admits Vaccine Does Not Prevent COVID

◦Public health officials have said over and over that they do not know if COVID-19 vaccines prevent spread
◦Pfizer did not test human subjects to see if those vaccinated could get and spread the infection, but when they tested primates, vaccinated animals still got COVID-19 despite being vaccinated
◦Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are made from messenger RNA and lipid nanoparticles containing polyethylene glycol (PEG); no vaccines made from messenger RNA nor this type of lipid nanoparticles have ever been used in humans; we have no idea about their long-term side effects
◦No one knows how long “immunity” lasts from COVID-19 vaccines, if in fact the vaccines do provide some degree of immunity — should it be called immunity if you can still catch and spread the virus?
◦This is a document designed to force EMTs to take the vaccine by using false information and veiled threats; when a product is good for you, there is no need to scare or threaten people into taking it

People have asked why I was not blogging about the Covid vaccines. To be honest, I felt there was not enough information for me to be decisive, and I was waiting for more information to become available. However, someone called me and told me about a lot of allergic reactions, including one anaphylactic reaction, at a local hospital after 30 doses were given. Staff were instructed to keep this quiet.

Then I watched a nine-minute Ben Swann video1 about the vaccines, in which he read the “declination form” that must be signed by EMTs in Maine who refuse the vaccine. It contained false and misleading statements, and I realized I should no longer delay discussing what I know about the vaccines.

1.Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are made from messenger RNA and lipid nanoparticles containing polyethylene glycol (PEG).

a.Messenger RNA (or any RNA) can potentially be converted to DNA in the presence of reverse transcriptase. That DNA potentially, or bits of it, could become linked to your native DNA.

While I have no idea how likely this is, I began to take the possibility seriously only after two members of FDA’s advisory committee (the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC) asked about it during their meeting to approve the Pfizer vaccine on December 10.2

I watched the entire meeting and took copious notes. Virologists tell us that much of our DNA is, in fact, originally viral DNA that found its way into ours.3 I now consider the potential for vaccine RNA to be converted to DNA and permanently inserted in my DNA a remote possibility — but one that I would like proven wrong before being vaccinated.

b.70% of Americans have pre-existing antibodies to PEG. FDA suspects that these PEG antibodies may be the cause of anaphylaxis post vaccination. The U.K. recommends against people with severe allergic conditions receiving the mRNA vaccines.

The CDC, however, recommends people receive it regardless of their allergy history, only asking that those with severe allergies wait an additional 15 minutes (total of 30 minutes) in the clinic in case they need to be resuscitated.

Anaphylaxis is occurring at about 1 in 45,000 doses,4 or 17 times the rate CDC has determined it occurs after other vaccines (1.3 episodes per million vaccinations5). Therefore, getting the shot in a drugstore or anywhere that trained physicians are not close by to perform a resuscitation seems like a bad idea.

According to the American College of Allergy, “The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine should be administered in a health care setting where anaphylaxis can be treated.”6 California has temporarily halted use of a lot of Moderna’s vaccine due to a high rate of anaphylaxis.7

2.No vaccines made from messenger RNA nor this type of lipid nanoparticles have ever been used in humans. We have no idea about their long-term side effects. The clinical trials followed subjects for only two months after two doses of vaccine at the time the vaccines were authorized for use.

3.Neither the Moderna nor the Pfizer trial enrolled many frail elderly subjects. Since both vaccines entered general use less than one month ago, we have heard tales of nursing home residents catching Covid or dying in higher numbers after receiving the vaccines.

But we do not know if this is a random event or a reaction to vaccination, since reliable data are not yet available. The elderly often fail to mount an immune response to a vaccine; if this is the case, they should not receive the vaccine, because they will be subject to the side effects without the benefit.

... Are the data from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials reliable, especially the claim that both yield 95% efficacy?

a. Members of the VRBPAC advisory committee wanted more information. Two of them asked to be given the results between November 14 (the date the data collection ended) and December 10 (the date of the meeting). Separately, at two different times, both FDA and Pfizer refused to provide this to the committee.

b. There were relatively few Covid-19 cases in Pfizer’s trial (under 200) despite 40,000 enrollees. Peter Doshi, blogging for the British Medical journal,13 noted that 20 times as many subjects had Covid-like symptoms as those who were diagnosed positive using PCR tests, but the much larger group had negative PCR tests.

We now know there are large numbers of false positives and negatives with PCR tests. Cycle threshold information was not supplied. No sequencing was done to assure that PCR positive individuals actually had Covid. I don’t trust these data.

c. Both Moderna and Pfizer provided rudimentary information to the FDA to apply for Emergency Use Authorizations14 — much less than is required to issue a vaccine license, according to US law15 — despite what Drs. Stephen Hahn and Peter Marks at FDA may have claimed to sooth the public.

d. FDA made the incomprehensible decision to NOT perform inspections of the manufacturing facilities of the Covid vaccine manufacturers.16 What did FDA not want to find? FDA misled its advisory committee by claiming to have reviewed all the manufacturing paperwork supplied to it. That is a far cry from inspecting the facility… (read more)

2021-01-31 b
"Please describe the impacts of disorderly, inefficient, and unfair prices in securities markets on communities, consumers, workers, and investors."

Unfair Prices? Give me a break, Pocahontas.

Sen. Warren, a.k.a. Pocahontas, wrote a whiny letter to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) on Friday. Is she upset the rabble got rich at billionaire's expense or that the curtain was ripped away and more Americans now see Wall Street as a rigged market?

Methinks the Communist doth protest too much.

Dear Acting Chair Lee:

I am writing regarding the recent surge in share prices for the video game retailer GameStop, whose stocks are “up 1,700 percent this month, including Wednesday’s climb of 135 percent” – driven by what one expert called a “flash mob with money.” These wild swings in value of GameStop and other companies that are subject to similar bets by traders are “detached from the factors that traditionally help establish a company’s value to investors,” I am deeply concerned that these casino-like swings in the value of GameStop and other company shares are yet another example of the gamesmanship that interferes with the “fair, orderly, and efficient” function of the market, raising obvious questions about public confidence in the market and those trading in it. I am writing to seek information on how the SEC intends to address these concerns and prevent these and future incidents of potential market manipulation.

Hedge funds, such as Melvin Capital Management, have bet that GameStop’s shares would fall in the hopes of reaping substantial profits. In recent weeks, however, share prices for GameStop began to rise, with a dramatic surge in recent days fueled not by any changes in the company’s economic fundamentals but by anonymous traders on the Reddit forum r/WallStreetBets.

... The stock market is not reflective of real economic conditions felt by communities across the country, and traders treating securities markets as casinos exploit these growing disparities and the companies and workers that underlie their gambles.
The SEC has a mandate to “protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation,” and “promote a market environment that is worthy of the public’s trust.” The Commission must review recent market activity affecting GameStop and other companies, and act to ensure that markets reflect real value, rather than the highly leveraged bets of wealthy traders or those who seek to inflict financial damage on those traders. To protect and restore public trust in sound securities regulation and enforcement, the Commission must identify gaps in existing securities laws and rules and ways in which the Commission can improve its enforcement capabilities.

... Do the wild swings in value of GameStop and other companies affected by similar trading schemes present any systemic concerns for financial systems or the stock market?

... What steps will the SEC take to ensure that securities markets better reflect prices that are in line with the intrinsic and fundamental value of underlying companies?

2021-01-31 a

This blog began 30 January 2020. This is entry number 1690.

What a year this has been: the first faux impeachment, then the Covid-Con, followed by unconstitutional and medically worthless mandates and lockdowns, and culminating with a stolen election of epic proportions.

Throughout, the mainstream media kept up their usual lies and gave us heaping helpings of fear mongering with scary side dishes of pandemic porn. The Swamp was not drained, the propaganda is worse than ever, the Potemkin economy is still addicted to magic money, and a senile usurper now churns out dozens of executive orders to destroy more jobs and continue the Great Replacement policies begun by Democrats during the mid 1960s.

Nasty Pelosi's second faux impeachment will soon come and go, the Never-Trumpers will continue to shriek, 21 election cases will continue to creep through the courts, and the GOP will become the party of Trump. Will a writ of quo warranto (2021-01-21 d and 2021-01-21 e) cause the Democrats and Deep State to unleash their anarchists for hire? Stay tuned.

2021-01-30 c

Vaccinated congressman tests positive for [China] virus

A Massachusetts congressman who has received both doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine has tested positive for the virus.

The office of U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch said Friday that the lawmaker had had a negative test result before attending President Joe Biden’s inauguration. The office says Lynch’s positive test result came after a staff member in his Boston office tested positive earlier this week.

A statement says Lynch isn’t displaying any symptoms of COVID-19. Lynch will self-quarantine and vote by proxy in Congress in the coming week.
Lynch is the second member of the state’s congressional delegation to test positive in as many days. On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan announced she had tested positive after repeatedly testing negative. (read more)

2021-01-30 b

The Senate’s Looming Prudential Questions Could Weigh Heavily With Members On Witnesses and Conviction

Below is my (expanded) column in the Hill on the prudential (as opposed to the constitutional) concerns raised by the second Trump impeachment trial. Senators will have to resolve these questions before reaching the merits.  The prudential concerns may also weigh heavily in the possible rejection of witnesses after the snap impeachment. The House blundered by leaving the record and witnesses entirely to the Senate to develop. The Senate could now chose to rule on the record — or lack thereof.  Even a couple days of hearings could have created a record of documents and witness accounts — and an opportunity for a formal response from the President. It could also have allowed for suggested changes on the language of the article to allow for broader support. I have no objection to removing a president on his final day, but the House should create a minimally sufficient record to support a constitutional determination of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Here is the column:

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump appeared to effectively end before it even began Tuesday. In a threshold procedural vote on the constitutionality of trying a former president, 45 senators voted in favor of a motion to challenge the trial, and that means almost half of the Senate believes Trump might not be subject to a trial, let alone a conviction, as a former president. It also means House impeachment managers may not be able to secure the Senate votes to convict.

For those members who believe the trial is invalid, the votes would not change based on the merits. In the 1999 impeachment of Bill Clinton, some Senate Democrats argued against a trial due to a lack of votes to convict him. They argued for simple votes without a trial on prudential grounds. But this time the larger prudential issue looms over the upper chamber. With acquittal now likely, members of the Senate may focus on the costs of a “snap impeachment” for the institution.

Before they took the oath for the impeachment trial and voted on the dismissal motion raised by Rand Paul, I met with all Senate Republicans to discuss the historical and constitutional issues. I did the same before the first impeachment trial of Trump. It was an intense and, in many ways, an inspiring discussion. Senators honestly struggled on whether they could vote to “remove” a president who is no longer in office.

The vote on the dismissal motion is not likely to end the debate over the constitutionality of a trial, which has strong arguments on both sides. There are only two cases where a retroactive removal was attempted. In 1789, resigned Senator William Blount refused to appear for what he saw as an unconstitutional trial. The Senate agreed and dismissed the case. A closer parallel involved former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. The same threshold vote was taken with the same result as almost half of the Senate voted to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional. The motion failed narrowly and the Senate had the trial then acquitted him.

But now the Senate is faced with the second prudential issue. There are cases which, even if legally brought, contain errors so significant they must be dismissed as unsound on prudential rather than constitutional grounds. This case raises such a fundamental error. The problem is not what was sent to the Senate but what was not. There was no record. For the first time in history, the House of Representatives sent an article of impeachment to the Senate without any hearing, any testimony, any response from the president. Not a word. It just sent a poorly crafted article of impeachment like a conclusion in search of proof.

Witnesses may be essential to establish intent by President Trump, which could be based on his actions before or after the riot. However, there are a myriad of sources for circumstantial or direct evidence. Like many, I have called for an investigation including inquiries on when National Guard troops were offered to Congress and whether Trump in any way delayed or obstructed the use of National Guard troops. That might not have been possible in a couple days. However, there was information available from the congressional side on whether troops were first offered, when they were requested, and any communications with the White House. If Trump refused to give authority for deployment, it would be strong circumstantial evidence of intent.

I am actually surprised that the House did not simply hold hearings after the vote. Weeks have gone by during which the House could be creating an evidentiary records either referenced at trial or made available to senators. Why not? Instead, the House is demanding witnesses at trial but could be creating a post-impeachment record. It is not ideal but it is better than waiting for a trial with limited or no witnesses.

Modern impeachment have uniformly had a record in the form of witness testimony or some other source of evidence.  Early impeachments were handled in a very different Congress where evidentiary hearings were not common as they are today. Indeed, the modern committee system did not exist. The Framers left it to the House to establish the basis for an impeachment. The expectation was that the vote of high crimes and misdemeanors would not be a simple conclusory vote but supported in some form to meet the constitutional standard. Witness testimony was not necessarily the expectation. That is why the House is often analogized to a grand jury which is different from a trial in its rules and operation.  While the Constitution only requires the articles of impeachment, all impeachments had some record of some kind to serve as the foundation for a presidential impeachment.  However, such testimony has been the norm either in House hearings or the incorporation of witness testimony as with the Clinton impeachment.

... The issue is whether the Senate wants to legitimize this radical departure from the traditions of both chambers. Some of us called for the House to hold at least a day of hearings to allow the chance for the president to respond. Yet the House refused to call any witness or hold any hearing on the article of impeachment. House leaders said there was not a day to spare then did nothing. They waited almost two weeks to submit the article to the Senate. It also did not make formal demands from the Administration for responses or create a record of any kind from evidence in control of Congress.

It is a familiar pattern. When I testified in the first impeachment hearing on Trump, I objected that the House was moving in the shortest time and on the thinnest record with any impeachment of a president. I testified that Trump could be impeached on two articles, the two ultimately adopted by the House, but cautioned that such a rush was unnecessary and would fail in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee did not call a sole witness, which led the Senate to decline to call any witness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff back then also insisted there was no time to waste then waited weeks to submit the articles to the Senate.

After the House destroyed its own rationale for its rushed impeachment, I wrote about a dangerous prudential concern for the Senate in accepting such an insufficient record for the trial. While the Constitution does not specify a record, this was a shocking departure from tradition. (read more)
(bold type mine)

2021-01-30 a
“I’d like to say very bluntly our mission is to redistribute wealth. A lot of people bristle at that phrase. That is, in fact, the phrase we need to use.”

Elizabeth Warren Calls Reporter’s Concerns Over A Wealth Tax As A “Bluff”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) was back on the airways this week touting her signature “wealth tax” in a sharp exchange with CNBC’s “Closing Bell” host Sarah Eisen. I have previously written about the constitutional concerns over a true wealth (as opposed to an income) tax, the exchange concerned the impact of a tax on the most wealthy. Warren ridiculed the notion of the wealthy leaving the country as a mere “bluff” meant to deter her and others from forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share.

A wealth tax has long been a rallying cry for Democrats. During the Democratic primary, I wrote about New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and his “eat the rich” pitch for votes. He pledged to “tax the hell out of the rich.”   Recently, de Blasio added that he viewed the public schools as a tool for wealth redistribution and not just education:  “I’d like to say very bluntly our mission is to redistribute wealth. A lot of people bristle at that phrase. That is, in fact, the phrase we need to use.”

The wealth tax however has been the focus of Warren’s campaigns. She has the support of academics like Yale Professor Bruce Ackerman who assured Warren that such a tax would be constitutional. In a Slate column entitled “Constitutional Critiques of Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Proposal Are Absurd,” Ackerman dismisses any possible constitutional challenge and made reference to my earlier Washington Post column. As I have previously said, there are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue and the outcome is likely to be a close vote. However, Ackerman reduction of countervailing arguments to absurdity not only omits key arguments but creates an incomplete account of the case against such a wealth tax. The “absurdity” of such a view is shared by a range of experts and law professors. Erik M. Jensen, the Coleman P. Burke Professor Emeritus of Law at Case Western Reserve University, analyzed the constitutionality of the proposal as concluded “at best, the wealth tax would be constitutional problematic.” Harvard Professor Noah Feldman concluded that it would be close question and would likely come down to Roberts’ vote. Chicago Law Professor Daniel Hemel also thought it would be close with a swing vote likely by Roberts. Michael Graetz, a professor of tax law at Columbia University, concluded “I think a constitutional challenge to an actual tax on wealth is inevitable.That it would fail does not seem to me to be obvious.” Brian Galle, a Georgetown professor at Georgetown Law, noted, as I did, that the absence of a transaction to tax would present a problem in a constitutional challenge. He added that, while he disagreed with earlier rulings of the Court like Pollock, “the Supreme Court doesn’t think that Pollock was wrong.”  He added that Warren’s academic supporters did not reveal the full strength of arguments against such a tax under the Constitution.

The problem is the text of Article I, Section 8 which permits Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” However, it requires that these “be uniform throughout the United States.” The next section says that “no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” A wealth tax by any measure is a “direct tax.” As I noted in my column, there are various contributing factors for this language from the infamous “Three-Fourths compromise” to early forms of taxation to a desire to limit federal tax authority.

Putting aside that interesting and unresolved constitutional question, Warren lashed out at the suggestion that such a tax would influence migration from the United States. Eisen reasonably noted that the tax “might also chase wealthy people out of this country as we’ve seen has happened with, with other wealth taxes. You just said how much we need the economy to be revitalized right now for companies to start adding jobs and not subtracting them anymore.”

Warren responded that “All I’m saying is can we have just, just a little fairness here? A two-cent wealth tax so that we can have universal childcare—” (read more)

-01-29 f
ELECTION LITIGATION (21 pending cases)

Election Cases We’re Watching

Welcome to the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of Election Law at Ohio State and SCOTUSblog. During the 2020 election season, we will provide up-to-date information on major election law cases as they make their way through every level of the court system. Our goal is to serve as a resource on election law and administration for the general public, lawyers, educators, journalists and policymakers. You can read all of our previous election-related coverage here. [Disclaimer: SCOTUSblog and Election Law at Ohio State are nonpartisan and do not endorse, support or oppose any candidate, campaign or party.] (read more)

2021-01-29 e

Chinese Media Celebrates Coronavirus Anal Swabs as ‘Awkward’ but ‘More Accurate’

Chinese state media on Thursday heralded the advent of a new, and supposedly more accurate, method of testing for the Chinese coronavirus that involves swabbing the subject’s anus.

Beijing residents subjected to the new testing procedure described it as “awkward” and a bit of an unpleasant surprise.

“You take off your pants, lie on the bed, and then you feel the cotton swabs inserted into your anus twice and turned a few times, which takes about 10 seconds each time,” one of the test subjects explained, as state media outlet Global Times quoted them.
Some of the test subjects were considerably less relaxed about the procedure:

An internet user on Xiaohongshu, a social media platform, said that she had a “mental meltdown” when she was informed she had to take anal swabs along with other methods including nasal swabs, throat swabs, blood draws, and saliva tests, after she returned from overseas and was quarantined for 28 days.

Another said, “When you bend over with your pants off, and medical staff poke your anus repeatedly, all you can feel is a sense of shame, but other than that, it was not that uncomfortable.”

Given the unpleasant experience when taking such tests, some netizens have asked whether it is necessary to adopt the method on top of the current ones, which have proved effective.

Chinese doctors the Global Times quoted said yes, it is necessary to embrace the new testing method because they have determined the Wuhan coronavirus “lives longer in the anus or excrement than in upper body tracts,” especially when dealing with asymptomatic carriers. They are also worried about coronavirus clusters that could live in the anal region and emerge through contaminated defection, which might remain contagious after leaving the body.

Up until this point, there has been no evidence of coronavirus transmission from the gastrointestinal tract. However, some studies have suggested that in patients who develop COVID pneumonia, the presence of COVID RNA in anal swabs may be an indicator of disease severity (i.e. increased likelihood of ICU admission).
Doctors said the new anal tests would only be performed on “key groups at quarantine centers.” Staff and students at a school in Beijing were treated to the new anal tests last week, in addition to older nasal, throat, and serum antibody tests, after a nine-year-old boy tested positive for the Chinese coronavirus.

Another Global Times article quoted some experts who disapprove of the anal tests, noting there is no evidence of transmission through the digestive system and excrement yet, so nasal and throat swabs are still “more efficient.”

“Beijing will also conduct serum antibody tests for all inbound overseas travelers who have entered the Chinese capital city since December 10 in an effort to find the chain of transmission in the latest cluster infections in the capital’s Daxing district,” the article reported.

Forbes noted that “there does not appear to be a coordinated policy” for using anal swabs, so the test came as a “surprise” to some patients. Al Jazeera News speculated the new test would be used more frequently as China’s travel-heavy Lunar New Year holiday approaches.

Al Jazeera noted a mixture of “mirth and horror” in reactions to the new tests on Chinese social media, including one commenter who described the test as “low harm but extreme humiliation.” (read more)

-01-29 d

Ok - here's my best explanation of why @RobinhoodApp restricted trading in the short-squeeze stocks.

Spoiler: the story isn't the Ken Griffen called Janet Yellen who instructed DTCC to raise margin on Robinhood to force them to shut down the speculative buying. (read more of this Twitter thread)

2021-01-29 c
"The vote signaled that this impeachment move, even flimsier and more kangaroo-trial-like than the last one a year ago, is going to go down in flames."

Impeachment collapses

In Trump derangement syndrome, Democrats just can't help themselves. Their bid to take President Trump down in his post-presidency through an illegal impeachment is going down like the Hindenburg.
Start with the latest - the vote in the Senate on Tuesday.

According to CBS News, which is broadcasting this as a Republican defeat:

The Senate voted 55 to 45 to reject a motion to dismiss the impeachment trial on the basis that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a private citizen, paving the way for the trial to begin in two weeks.

Five Republicans — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey — joined all Democrats in voting to table the point of order, brought by GOP Senator Rand Paul.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was among the Republicans who voted against the point of order, brought by Paul, indicating McConnell supports Paul's position that an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional.

It's nonsense. Sen. Rand Paul's motion to dismiss the impeachment was a spectacular defeat for the Democrats. It snuffed out, right then and there for them, that there is not going to be any impeachment with conviction. All their bloviating and disinformation regarding what went down on Jan. 6 has been seen through by their opponents, who've now stood up and been counted. Verdict: Defeat. Yet at least two more weeks of walking through this. Why do Democrats now even bother? They can't turn around yet most would probably be glad to do so if they only could.

Sure, there were five Republicans who sided with them, but it was nowhere near the 17 they had hoped for. Those five -- Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins -- are all dyed-in-the-wool NeverTrumps who have never given President Trump the benefit of the doubt. We already knew they'd do it, it's part and parcel of being anti-Trump. As for the Democrats, their impeachment bid, with all its quasi religious procession walks from the House, and its souvenir pens, is another complete loser for Democrats.

The vote signalled that this impeachment move, even flimsier and more kangaroo-trial-like than the last one a year ago, is going to go down in flames. For Democrats, that's two, and apparently they learned nothing from the last one. Democrats are 0 for 2 in their nonstop hate for Donald Trump, yet now it's clear they're wasting their time.

How's that for a legislative achievement? Not only is it a waste of time from a feckless leftist Congress,  it also comes at a cost. Democrats flushed down the toilet the honeymoon beginnings of the Biden presidency, make it look pretty small. Biden, of course, was too cowardly to tell them to cut it off as a sideshow interfering with his political honeymoon. Biden's weakness in the face of these clowns is exposed along with this, and he's a loser, too.

But wait - it gets better.

How's things for the NeverTrumps?

Turns out it's stinking bad.

According to the New York Times from a few days ago:

It’s been less than two weeks since Representatives Peter Meijer, Tom Rice and Liz Cheney broke with nearly all of their Republican colleagues in the House and voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump, but in their home states, the backlash is already growing.

In Michigan, a challenger to Mr. Meijer received a boost when Steve Bannon promoted him on his podcast.

In South Carolina, a local Republican is getting so many calls urging him to run against Mr. Rice that he can’t keep his phone charged.

And in Wyoming, a state senator called Ms. Cheney, the No. 3 Republican in the House, “out of touch” with her home state as he announced his primary campaign against her.

The hot-headed quest for impeachment made Democrats and their NeverTrump buddies think they controlled the show. They thought they had Trump on the ropes, his political career over.

What they didn't count on was the fact that Trump is like one of those bouncing punching bags, always bouncing back up.

Bad call, Liz Cheney. Bad call, Mitt Romney. They and all their NeverTrump buddies now find themselves trying to bail water. (read more)

2021-01-29 b
"I can certainly see why the Biden voters feel betrayed."

Buyer's Remorse? Let’s Blame the Press

In his first week in office President Asterisk has done his old boss proud.  In just six days, lunch bucket Joe has signed 36 executive orders and put tens of thousands of jobs at risk.  He’s cancelled major construction projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and the border wall -- resulting in lost jobs for the very unions who endorsed him.  He is reestablishing a moratorium on energy exploration on federal lands and rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change.  These orders will cause further job losses in the energy sector and lost revenue in states that supported him.  If that were not enough, his relaxation of border control and immigration enforcement will result in an influx of illegal immigrants competing for the remaining jobs.  Luckily, Joe has also thoughtfully issued and order expanding food assistance programs.  Thousands of unemployed workers may need it.
Even though the Harris/Biden administration is in its infancy, it has already triggered a flood of complaints of “buyer’s remorse.”  It seems many who voted for Joe weren’t expecting this.  In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”  I say we help those with “buyer’s remorse” get over it.  We should give them a scapegoat.  Let’s blame the press.  It wasn’t the voter’s fault -- they were misled.

Biden voters were victims of a four-year propaganda campaign to smear Donald Trump and drag the Democrat nominee  -- any nominee -- across the finish line, truth be damned.

Mark Twain once said, “If you don’t read the papers you’re uninformed.  If you do read the papers you’re misinformed.”  I submit that in this case, the voters have been subjected to both.  Evidence of legacy news media propaganda during the four years of the Trump administration are legion.

Reporting about the Biden family influence-for-graft business was nonexistent.  In fact, Joe’s brother and his son received millions of dollars from China, the Ukraine, and Russia.  Their business dealings have been highly suspicious and included exorbitant salaries as board members, consulting contracts, and even partial ownership of foreign companies.  Hunter Biden even won many of these opportunities after traveling to these countries with his father -- the vice president!  The legacy media mysteriously never mentioned that Joe’s family was getting this money while Vice President Biden was influencing U.S. policy with those very countries.

The legacy media didn’t bother to mention that Hunter Biden is under federal investigation, and that Joe may be implicated.  Hunter Biden’s laptop had been abandoned and its contents were legally disclosed.  The contents revealed that Joe Biden was actively involved in Hunter’s business dealings -- even to the point of sharing an office with a Chinese businessman.  The laptop even disclosed that a percentage of the business proceeds were to go to Joe.  Yet Joe has always claimed he had no involvement in Hunter’s business.  The legacy media spiked stories on the subject and social media censored anyone attempting to report it.

It is an established fact that Joe Biden intimidated the Ukraine into shutting down an investigation of his son.  After learning that a Ukrainian prosecutor was looking into Hunter's business dealings, Vice President Biden threatened to withhold one billion dollars in aid unless the prosecutor was fired.  The prosecutor was fired and the investigation was terminated -- within six hours of the threat.  The legacy media have claimed that this story was debunked.  But Joe actually said he did it himself, to an audience, and on camera (what a genius).  He wouldn’t have lied, would he?
The legacy news media made no mention of the fact that Joe has been credibly accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade.  Granted, Joe has not been indicted nor convicted of anything, but Ms. Reade does have corroborating witnesses.  The fact that Joe’s predations may go well beyond inappropriate hugging and hair sniffing seems like something his voters should know -- no?

The media has called Donald Trump a racist for four years, with never a mention of Joe’s numerous racist comments.  Aside from insulting minorities with reckless abandon (including his former boss, Barack Obama), Joe has had disturbing associations with known racists.  In fact, he spoke in glowing terms about, and even eulogized Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.

The legacy media claimed that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.  They didn’t bother to mention that Vice President Biden was involved in instigating the FBI investigation that drove the “Russian collusion” narrative.  For three years, the media reported leaks from the investigation that claimed solid evidence of Trump’s collusion was forthcoming.  However, the evidence never materialized.  Funny, they didn’t bother to tell anyone that the Mueller investigation cleared Trump of any such collusion.

And perhaps the worst misrepresentation of all, Biden promised to do everything that he is now doing.  On the campaign trail he promised to end fracking, cancel drilling leases, open the borders, forgive student debt, provide Medicare for all, and rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement.  That this was unknown to his voters is a shocking indictment of the legacy media.

I can certainly see why the Biden voters feel betrayed.  How could they have possibly known what they were voting for?  It wasn’t their fault.  It was all the news media’s fault.  At least that’s what I’m telling them.  They simply had nowhere to turn for the truth -- other than American Thinker, Breitbart News, Redstate, RealClearPolitics, Townhall, Newsmax, and 75 million screaming conservatives. (read more)

See also: One week in, Biden [regime] shows its exquisite cruelty

2021-01-29 a
"So in over 256 NFL games (not including playoff games), and for well over 1,000 practices (probably closer to 2,000) involving 32 teams and over 2,000 players, there was zero evidence of “on-field transmission.” "

CDC/NFL Publish Revealing Wuhan Virus Paper

Multiple outlets have recently reported on a new “scientific paper” published by the CDC in partnership with the NFL. The paper was authored by “medical experts” from both the NFL and the NFL Players Association. The paper details the efforts by the NFL to conduct its season in the midst of the Wuhan virus. As the lockdown narrative still prevails across much of the U.S., this paper provides some important revelations.
Before discussing the paper, it is important to note that, despite a few postponements and unlike the NCAA and thousands of high schools across the U.S. that caved to the Wuhan virus fear narrative, every NFL regular season game was played. Only the Super Bowl remains.

Reporting on the CDC/NFL paper, Fox News notes that “from Aug. 9 to Nov. 21 approximately 623,000 COVID-19 tests were performed on approximately 11,400 players and staff members and 329 tested positive (2.9%).” That’s about 55 tests per individual conducted over a 105-day period. (This period constitutes the bulk of the NFL regular season.) That means, on average, that NFL employees were getting tested once every two days.

The 2.9% number is calculated by dividing the number who tested positive (329) by the total number tested (11,400). However, it would be more revealing to note, of the 623,000 tests, how many tests were positive. Almost certainly this number is significantly lower than 2.9%. It’s also important to note that in spite of these “positive” tests, almost zero serious illnesses from the Wuhan virus were reported.

In other words, though the NFL’s rampant testing yielded a few “positives,” virtually no one got sick. Almost every player or coach who was reported to have missed a game had to do so because of a “positive test.” Thus, as we have seen throughout the past ten months, a “positive test” does not in any way indicate an actual Wuhan virus case.

Only two NFL employees -- Denver’s defensive coordinator Ed Donatell and Jacksonville running back Ryquell Armstead -- reportedly had to be hospitalized due to Wuhan virus complications. Both have fully recovered. It seems that for NFL players -- and for football players at any level -- the dangers from the Wuhan virus pale in comparison to the dangers that come from playing in football games.

Most telling from the CDC/NFL paper was the fact that, according to Dr. Allen Sills, the NFL’s chief medical officer, “We have not seen any evidence of on-field transmission in NFL games or practices.” Dr. Sills added,

I think that that is an important observation. It’s certainly a question that many people raised before we started as to why that occurred. I think there are a number of theories that people have advanced. One of them is that obviously we’re playing either in an open area or at least an extremely large air environment where we’ve got a lot of ventilation, a lot of movement and likely quick dispersal of any droplets or particles.

... In fact, given that many NFL games and practices are in large indoor facilities -- and given that there was zero person-to-person transmission where rampant close contact was present -- why would any mall, church, school, or Walmart, mandate masks?

Why did the NFL mandate masks on its sidelines? If sweaty, bleeding players engaged in hand-to-hand battles did not spread the virus, why in the world would merely standing on a sideline be any more dangerous?

This data from the NFL should again make it clear that, for the young and healthy, the Wuhan virus presents little to no danger. Along with the fact that a mountain of other data has shown that masks and mask mandates do not prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus, this data from the NFL should also put an end to the widespread masking of Americans. This is especially true for the young and any who are asymptomatic. (read more)


Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,


2021 2020

2021 - January 25 - 28

2021 - January 21 - 24

2021 - January 14 - 20

2021 - January 7 - 13

2021 - January 1 - 6

2020 - December 28 - 31

2020 - December 21 - 27

2020 - December 17 - 20

2020 - December 13 - 16

2020 - December 8 - 12

2020 - December 1 - 7

2020 - November 22 - 30

2020 - November 16 - 21

2020 - November 9 - 15

2020 - November 1 - 8

2020 - October 24 - 31

2020 - October 16 - 23

2020 - October 1 - 15

2020 - September 16 - 30

2020 - September 1 - 15

2020 - August 16 - 31

2020 - August 1 - 15

2020 - July 16 - 31

- JULY 1 - 15

JUNE 16 - 30

- JUNE 1 - 15

2020 - MAY 16 - 31

- MAY 1 - 15

- APRIL 16 - 30

2020 - APRIL 1 - 15

2020 - MARCH


2020 - JANUARY


 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.

- Unlike all the legacy media, our editorial offices are not in Langley, Virginia.

- You won't catch us fiddling while Western Civilization burns.

Close the windows so you don't hear the mockingbird outside, grab a beer, and see what the hell is going on as we witness the controlled demolition of our society.

- The truth usually comes from one source. It comes quietly, with no heralds. Untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.

- The loudest partisans belong to the smallest parties. The media exaggerate their size and influence.

No Thanks
If you let them redefine words, they will control language.
If you let them control language, they will control thoughts.
If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you.

© 2020 - 2021 - - All Rights Reserved