Joe Biden

Vivek’s Masterclass: Staying Professional In The Face Of Hostility

Published by Papa Giorgio

Two of my comments on THE BREAKFAST CLUB’S interview of Vivek Ramaswamy follow the video — with some additional context to the six cults studied:

RPT’s Master Class on Racist Democrats!

After hearing Ramaswamy say on the Breakfast Club, “…if there are human beings, and not god, living in a nation…” (8:05 mark) – I assume many around the show and fans think they are in fact gods. Literally. Here I refer to the Five-Percent Nation and the Nation of Islam, and the subsequent racist black nationalist New Age UFO cult and anti-Semitic history and the creation of the “devil” on the Greek island of Patmos over 6,000 years ago, an evil [big-headed] scientist, Yakub. I assume these influences, even music, is large in this audience. For instance, here are hip-hop “influencers” that are members [or were during the height of their career] of this black nationalist – racist – cult and the subsequent “Afrocentrist” history that sets up failure in fighting “the Devil” – the white man – rather than a self, which a healthy religion does:

Rakim – member of the influential duo Eric B. & Rakim; Big Daddy Kane; Lakim Shabazz; Nas; Wu-Tang Clan – Ghostface Killah and Raekwon have deep ties to the 5%’ers, as do the following: Gang Starr; MF Doom; Jay Electronica; Busta Rhymes (Raised a Five Percenter, he has since converted to traditional Islam); Black Thought – Lead MC of the Philadelphia-based hip hop group The Roots; Ras Kass; Jus Allah – Member of the underground rap duo Jedi Mind Tricks; Cormega; Allah Mathematics – Hip hop producer and DJ for the Wu-Tang Clan; Erykah Badu – Her Grammy Award-winning song “On & On” features teachings of the Five Percent Nation [my favorite is Tyron]; Pete Rock & CL Smooth; Jadakiss; Jay-Z;TDK, Xcel, Raz Fresco, World’s Famous Supreme Team DJ Crew, Brand Nubian, Poor Righteous Teachers (a group whose very name comes from Five Percent teachings), 6orn, Estee Nack, Carmelo Anthony (NBA), L.L. Cool J, Kanye West, Jay Electronica, Queen Latifah, — just to name a few.

And I say this after studied [in-depth] 6 major racist cults [religious and secular].

After watching the appearances of Larry Elder and Vivek Ramaswamy on this show, the complete lack of understanding of facts and an honest contemplation of a countering viewpoint stands out. Rather, they simply malign with racism and false history. I can see from the comments below/above that there is an already large [and growing] group of observers and thinkers that likewise show the depravity of thought on The Breakfast Club. Bravo to the commonsense commenters 👏👏👏👏👏

ADDED INFO-THE BIG “SIX”

CHRISTIAN IDENTITY (C.I.) | While in jail for my 3rd time for a decade old warrant, I was privileged to lead a young C.I. man to the Lord… he threw all his racist pamphlets from that “church” away while in Pitchess Detention Center, North – long story. It has its roots in British Israelism.

KU KLUX KLAN (KKK) | 5-to-8k members per SPLC – both the Aryan Brotherhood (a racist prison gang not much different than the BGF), the largest white power groups, and the KKK are socialists. Leftists politically. One study found that there were “4,467 total victims of lynching from 1883 to 1941. Of these victims, 4,027 were men, 99 were women, and 341 were of unidentified gender (although likely male); 3,265 were Black, 1,082 were white, 71 were Mexican or of Mexican descent, 38 were American Indian, 10 were Chinese, and 1 was Japanese.” (They were most probably ALL Republicans.)

NATION OF ISLAM (NOI) | A racist black nationalist New Age UFO cult and anti-Semitic group currently led by Louise Farrakhan – after his UFO visit, the Little Messiah. They believe they are gods who participated in the creation of this world and that over 6,000 years ago, an evil [big-headed] scientist created the devil on the Greek island of Patmos. (The “devil” is the white population, which will be enslaved or culled by black gods returning in UFOs: 

SEE “Farrakhan’s Bats*#t-Crazy UFO Sermon”

FIVE-PERCENTERS: NATIONS OF GODS AND EARTH | 5-Percenter Nation is a splinter group founded by Allah the Father (formerly Clarence 13X) who left NOI. They use “science” and “math” to communicate deeper “truths” of existence – for lack of space.

The many Black Hebrew Israelites [racist] groups

BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY | while I have studied its South American Marxist roots (and connection to Pope Francis), mainly my interest lies in its Black Liberation Theology. I ordered 4 books many years ago from the Akibba bookstore (the Afrocentric bookstore of Obama’s church of 20-years, Trinity United Church of Christ — now totally revamped with the Rev. Wright gone): 1. A Black Theology of Liberation, by James Cone; 2. Black Theology & Black Power, by James Cone; 3. Is God a White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology, by William R. Jones; and 4. (a book I enjoyed somewhat), The Black Christ, by Kelly Brown Douglas. I was surprised to find the amount of racism I did.

Here are three quotes from James Cone’s main thesis:

QUOTES FROM BOOK PURCHASED VIA OBAMA’ CHURCH:

  • “The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62
  • “White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” – Adolf Hitler | Mein Kampf

  • “There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject y conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples” ~ James Cone,  A Black Theology of Liberation, p.63
  • “Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.38
  • “In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.65

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” – Adolf Hitler | Mein Kampf

  • “These new theologians of the Third World argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.32
  • “It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.14
  • “It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” ~ James Cone, Black Theology & Black Power, p.151
  • “It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the American Way” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.55-56

“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” – Adolf Hitler | Mein Kampf

This influence from Liberation Theology is a main driver to the whole “white privilege” lie we see today.

These cults are typically led by a leader who tells the people how to vote. Also note that in 2008 three-of-the-four largest supremacist groups asked their followers to vote for Obama. And the one who didn’t tell his people to vote for Obama says voting is a waste of time and that he doesn’t vote — so, essentially, of the largest 4 that told their supports to go out and…:

📢. . .VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN:
  • Tom Metzger: Director, White Aryan Resistance;
  • Ron Edwards: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America;
  • Erich Gliebe: Chairman, National Alliance; Career Highlights;
  • Rocky Suhayda: Chairman, American Nazi Party.

… is💯% (Or, if you wish, 3/4ers with 1/4 abstaining)

BONUS: California’s KKK Grand Dragon Endorsed Hillary

BONUS: Florida NAZI Leader of Blood Tribe: Anti-Capitalist and Pro-Biden

BONUS: Richard Spencer Admit Being A Socialist (not “Alt-Right” but “Alt-Left)

I note this myth that racist cults are “right leaning” in a comment to a friend:

  • Most of those people typically vote Democrat. Even if they wrote Trump in (who is not a conservative — he is a populist — and why 34% of Bernie Sanders voters said they will vote Trump over Hillary) they along with almost the entirety of the racist cults in America vote Democrat down ticket from there. Why, I sum up why in my post, and it is why the driver that killed that woman was involved in Occupy Wall Street (Gay Patriot h-t)…. [QUOTE from my site]

A RECAP from a large refutation of the idea that the KKK and others vote Republican for clarity on the reasoning racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat (RPT):

  • They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).

Again, there are about 5-to-8,000 KKK members nationwide, of which a few hundred were there. All Republicans denounce that. But no Democrat has really denounced the NAZI style church Obama went to for 20-years — see HERE and HERE.

While most Democrats publicly support BLM, who has followers that have killed people and the co-founder of on BLM radio called for lynching and hanging of white people and cops. In other places they have called for genocide, and the many other examples I could give… like this via my YouTube (to the right):

Remember, REPUBLICANSvoted for these acts at 100% or slightly less… Democrats voted against them 100% or slightly less:

  • Civil Rights Act 1866,
  • Reconstruction Act of 1867,
  • Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866,
  • Enforcement Act of 1870,
  • Force Act of 1871,
  • Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871,
  • Civil Rights Act of 1875,
  • Civil Rights Act of 1957,
  • Civil Rights Act of 1960,
  • 1964 Civil Rights Act,
  • 1965 Voting Rights Acts,
  • 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

And — lest these quotes are lost to history:

  • BILL CLINTON: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”
  • JOSEPH BIDEN: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” continuing he said, “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
  • DAN RATHER: “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”

Democrats even chose a racist to be the keynote speaker at the 2012 Convention: JULIAN CASTRO is a member of La Raza… the group Cesar Chavez (founder of the founder of the United Farm Workers [UFW]) said was a supremacist group:

When I wrote a few months ago about the origins of “la raza” as a racial-surpremacist concept (developed in the ’20s and ’30s on the idea of the biological superiority of mestizos), Janet Murguia, head of the National Council of La Raza, pointed and sputtered over at the Huffington Post.

Well, while reading a memoir/history of the immigration-reform movement by retired historian Otis Graham (who’s on my board), I find out that even Cesar Chavez rejected the “la raza” idea as inherently racist. Graham quoted a 1969 New Yorkerprofile by Peter Matthiessen:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told me. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ’la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. … La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos.”

And in Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution, his 1970 biography, Matthiessen talked to Chavez deputy Leroy Chatfield:

“That’s one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It’s phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their ‘dumb Mexican’ leader; he’s become their saint. But he doesn’t want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, ‘Can’t they understand that that’s just the way Hitler started?’ A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit’s sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it’s related to Hitler’s concept.”

In 1968, the Ford Foundation started the Southwest Council of La Raza, presumably the “outfit” Chatfield was referring to, which five years later changed its name to the National Council of La Raza.

(NATIONAL REVIEW)

Not only that, but Julian Castro’s mother is involved deeply in the MEChA movement. That is the group that wants Mexico to take back the portion lost in the Mexican-American war. These guys/gals ACTUALLY show up in brown shirts.

International Business Times points this connection out:

  • Castro is the son of Maria “Rosie” Castro, a Chicano political activist who helped establish the Chicano political party La Raza Unida in the 1970s.

Charles Johnson puts the nail in the radical’s coffin:

…“[My mother] sees political activism as an opportunity to change people’s lives for the better. Perhaps that is because of her outspoken nature or because Chicanos in the early 1970s (and, of course, for many years before) had no other option. To make themselves heard Chicanos needed the opportunity that the political system provided. In any event, my mother’s fervor for activism affected the first years of my life, as it touches it today.

Castro wrote fondly of those early days and basked in the slogans of the day. “‘Viva La Raza!’ ‘Black and Brown United!’ ‘Accept me for who I am—Chicano.’ These and many other powerful slogans rang in my ears like war cries.” These war cries, Castro believes, advanced the interests of their political community. He sees her rabble-rousing as the cause for Latino successes, not the individual successes of those hard-working men and women who persevered despite some wrinkles in the American meritocracy.

[My mother] insisted that things were changing because of political activism, participation in the system. Maria del Rosario Castro has never held a political office. Her name is seldom mentioned in a San Antonio newspaper. However, today, years later, I read the newspapers, and I see that more Valdezes are sitting on school boards, that a greater number of Garcias are now doctors, lawyers, engineers, and, of course, teachers. And I look around me and see a few other brown faces in the crowd at [Stanford]. I also see in me a product of my mother’s diligence and her friends’ hard work. Twenty years ago I would not have been here…. My opportunities are not the gift of the majority; they are the result of a lifetime of struggle and commitment by a determined minority. My mother is one of these persons. And each year I realize more and more how much easier my life has been made by the toil of past generations. I wonder what form my service will take, since I am expected by those who know my mother to continue the family tradition. [Emphasis Castro’s]

[….]

Rosie named her first son, Julian, for his father whom she never married, and her second, who arrived a minute later, for the character in the 1967 Chicano anti-gringo movement poem, “I Am Joaquin.” She is particularly proud that they were born on Mexico’s Independence Day. And she was a fan of the Aztlan aspirations of La Raza Unida. Those aspirations were deeply radical. “As far as we got was simply to take over control in those [Texas] communities where we were the majority,” one of its founders, Jose Angel Gutierrez, told the Toronto paper. “We did think of carving out a geographic territory where we could have our own weight, and our own leverage could then be felt nation-wide.”

Removing all doubt, Gutierrez repeated himself often. “What we hoped to do back then was to create a nation within a nation,” he told the Denver Post in 2001. Gutierrez bemoaned the loss of that separatist vision among activists, but predicted that Latinos will “soon take over politically.” (“Brothers in Chicano Movement to Reunite,” Denver Post, August 16, 2001).

Gutierrez made clear his hatred for “the gringo” when he led the Mexican-American Youth Organization, the precursor to La Raza Unida. According to the Houston Chronicle, he “was denounced by many elected officials as militant and un-American.” And anti-American he was. “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to worst, we have got to kill him,” Gutierrez told a San Antonio audience in 1969. At around that time, Rosie Castro eagerly joined his cause, becoming the first chairwoman of the Bexar County Raza Unida Party. There’s no evidence of her distancing herself from Gutierrez’s comments, even today. Gutierrez even dedicated a chapter in one of his books to Ms. Castro.

…read more…

WHAT IS THE POINT!?

The BREAKFAST CLUB has it all backwards. All the hosts of the show – show their ignorance to history and facts surrounding the Democrat Party. They should be swarming to vote Republican, for the Grand Ol’ Party’s history and freedom goals!

Duhmentia Joe Got Strom Thurmond To Vote Yes on the Civil Rights Act?

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is pretty much all RIGHT SCOOP:

  •  “I thought things had changed. I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died. And I thought well maybe there’s real progress. But hate never dies, it just hides.”

RIGHT SCOOP notes the problem with that:

There is literally, not figuratively, nothing accurate in Biden’s entire claim. Strom Thurmond voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Joe Biden didn’t graduate college until 1965. He didn’t get out of law school until 1968 and didn’t run for the US Senate until 1972. When exactly did Biden do all of this ‘convincing’?

Like I said, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between Biden’s lies and Biden losing his mind. But one thing is very clear, the garbage media isn’t going to expose any of this.

FLASHBACK: In 1991, Biden Touts Work W/ Sen. Thurmond To Pass Strict Crack Cocaine Penalties

In 1991, Joe Biden bragged about working with segregationist Strom Thurmond to pass mandatory minimums for a quarter-size of crack cocaine. He praised Thurmond’s help passing laws to incarcerate Black Americans. Racial justice begins by retiring Joe Biden from public life. (YOUTUBE)

Montage: Biden’s History of Spewing Racism

Media Changes Narrative To Protect Biden

Published by Papa Giorgio

Over the past four years, President Biden has said that he did not know about, and did not benefit, from Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

BRIETBART has more on the exact dates these lies were spoke:

President Joe Biden “lied” at least 16 times about his family’s elaborate business schemes, the House Oversight Committee recounted Thursday.

The committee says Joe Biden lied in five different ways about his family’s foreign business endeavors:

1) That Joe Biden never spoke to his family about their business dealings;
2) His family did not receive $1 million through a third party;
3) Hunter Biden never made money in China;
4) Hunter Biden’s dealings were ethical;
5) and his son did nothing wrong.

This is a bit of a FLASHBACK PIVOT, but one worth making as it leads into a new talking point. Remember, the previous lkie told to get Biden across the finish line was that the laptop was Russian disinfo:

A MATT TAIBBI FLASHBACK

Burying the lede just a bit, the New York Times on March 16th published a long, spirited piece about the federal tax investigation of Hunter Biden. This is the 24th paragraph:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In confirming that federal prosecutors are treating as “authenticated” the Biden emails, the Times story applies the final dollop of clown makeup to Wolf Blitzer, Lesley Stahl, Christiane Amanpour, Brian Stelter, and countless other hapless media stooges, many starring in Matt Orfalea’s damning montage above (the Hunter half-laugh is classic, by the way). All cooperated with intelligence officials to dismiss a damaging story about Biden’s abandoned laptop and his dealings with the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma as “Russian disinformation.” They tossed in terms thought up for them by spooks as if they were their own thoughts, using words like “obviously” and “classic” and “textbook” to describe “the playbook of Russian disinformation,” in what itself was and still is a wildly successful disinformation campaign, one begun well before the much-derided (and initially censored) New York Post exposé on the topic from October of 2020…..

(READ IT ALL)

NOW THEY REJECT RUSSIAN DISINFO

Now that it has been confirmed, Democrat politicians and the MSM have switched gears, saying, that there is no evidence that Biden benefited from these [now proven] transactions. Let me re-word it how the MSM and Dems do:

“NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT.”

BREITBART again notes this newest pivot by Dems and media:

….After Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s best friend in business, testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee, Democrats and members of the media used a joint talking point to try to discredit his testimony.

Archer told House investigators that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke on speakerphone over 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates to promote the Biden “brand.”

Breitbart News reported that Archer’s testimony produced evidence implicating Joe Biden in a bribery scheme in which a foreign company paid Hunter Biden in return for use of the Biden “brand.”

“So far they [Republicans] have not been able to prove any evidence of wrongdoing,” a reporter said on ABC News’ Good Morning America.

“House GOP members continue to try and link Hunter’s business dealings to the president, though they have yet to produce any concrete evidence,” NBC News’ Today morning show claimed. “Now it is important to keep in mind while Republicans believe that there is a tie between Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the president himself, they have yet to provide any hard evidence that the president himself has done anything wrong.”

“Republicans have not tied the president, Joe Biden, to profiteering from them,” MNSBC reported. “They didn’t have the evidence yet.”

“Where’s the evidence?” Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) asked on CNN. “There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President.”

“There is today zero evidence — zero evidence — that Joe Biden, the president United States, knew about what his son was doing,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claimed.

    • “And if the President of the United States committed the kind of offenses that in the Republican fever dreams they’re saying he committed without any evidence,” he continued, “there is at this point zero evidence that Joe Biden is guilty of anything. What the Republicans are doing, of course, is they’re just very, very angry that their guy got impeached twice, and so they’re just casting about for a way of revisiting retribution on the Democrats and this is their latest fever dream.”

However, 15 pieces of evidence strongly suggest Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business dealings:

  1. Biden family Suspicious Activity Reports of wire transfers
  2. Texts
  3. Emails
  4. WhatsApp messages
  5. Photos of Joe with Hunter’s business partners
  6. Joe Biden’s voicemail to Hunter Biden
  7. Five individuals referencing Joe Biden as the “big guy”
  8. Two whistleblower testimonies
  9. FBI FD-1023 form alleging recorded phone calls and text between Biden and Burimsa executive
  10. FBI informant alleging bribes 
  11. Video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor
  12. Hunter’s statements about giving half his income to his dad
  13. Ex-White House Aide saying FBI ignored Joe Biden’s role in Ukraine business dealings
  14. Millions flowing into Biden family bank accounts
  15. Hunter Biden paying for Joe Biden’s expenses

(READ IT ALL)

THEY THINK THEIR VIEWERS ARE DUMMIES

Professor Turley make the most salient point when discussing the Democrats position:

  • “Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,”

Here is more from DAILY CALLER:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that the media and Democrats were offering “ridiculous” excuses about bribery allegations involving Hunter Biden.

“The media is now acknowledging that, sure, Hunter Biden was selling influence and access but it was an illusion and there’s no proof that Joe Biden got an envelope full of money or a direct deposit to his account; therefore, there’s nothing here,” Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “Democrats have constantly said stop asking questions because you don’t have that type of direct evidence of benefits. Well, that’s just ridiculous. I mean, obviously, all of these payments benefit Joe Biden. It’s going to the Biden family fund.”

[….]

“Being a crook doesn’t mean you’re a moron, and it would take a moron to do a direct deposit into an account to the Biden family or send him some Zelle transfer. It’s not done. The Bidens are very good at this,” Turley said. “They have been in the influence peddling business for decades. There’s been articles, not just Hunter but the president’s brother openly selling his access according to critics, so they have been at this a long time.”

“Here’s the weird thing is that you have got this labyrinth of accounts, right? Two dozen different shell companies’ accounts that have no discernible pursuance except to hide the money transfers going to the Biden family and, yet Democrats are demanding the one thing that is the least likely to appear,” Turley added. “Despite that whole apparatus to transfer money, someone was giving a direct deposit slip to Joe and Jill Biden. I mean, how crazy is that? So we have to, I think, deal with the reality that this is what influence peddling is.”

Eric Schwerin, a former business partner of Hunter Biden who visited the White House at least 19 times during the Obama administration when President Joe Biden served as vice president, will testify before the House Oversight Committee, Republican Rep. James Comer told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow earlier Thursday.

(DAILY CALLER)

CAVING TO FACTS… SLOWLY

Much like their other positions, this narrative is [grudgingly] starting to [have to] conform to evidence.

It’s so bad that like the “trump called NAZI’s good” lie, CNN has caved again to facts after a long holdout:

Maybe this fact will someday make the MSM?

9 VS. 6

Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020, which is that in 2017 Democrats challenged nine state’s electors and in 2021 Republicans challenged six state’s electors:

…In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton‘s 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.

According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:

  1. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama’s votes.
  2. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida’s votes.
  3. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia’s votes.
  4. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina’s votes.
  5. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing “massive voter suppression” after Mississippi’s votes were announced.
  6. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan’s votes.
  7. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, “I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask ‘Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'” after the announcement of Wyoming’s votes.

[….]

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.

[….]

In total, Republicans made objections to votes from six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. By the end of the joint session, Biden’s 306 electoral votes were certified, just as Trump’s votes had been certified in 2017….

(NEWSWEEK)

THE BIG LIE DEM VS. GOP

Democrat’s “Stolen” Election Claims | “Stolen” 2016 Election

The NEW YORK TIMES notes the following about the Democrats 21st century strategy:

…Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.

In January 2001, Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida objected to counting his state’s electoral votes because of “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas referred to the “millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida’s inaccurate vote count.” Representative Maxine Waters of California characterized Florida’s electoral votes as “fraudulent.”

Vice President Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them. Part of the reason they didn’t join, presumably, was that Mr. Gore conceded the election a month earlier.

In January 2005, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s re-election, Democrats were more aggressive. Senator Barbara Boxer of California joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio to lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate, even though Mr. Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes.

Representative Barbara Lee of California claimed that “the Democratic process was thwarted.” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York said that the right to vote was “stolen.” Ms. Waters objected too, dedicating her objection to the documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” painted a dark (and at times factually debatable) picture of the Bush presidency.

The motion failed, but not before 31 members of the House, and Ms. Boxer in the Senate, voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes — effectively voting to disenfranchise the people of Ohio in the Electoral College.

In January 2017, after Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats in Congress once again challenged the election outcome. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts cited “the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia.” Ms. Lee of California argued that Michigan’s electoral votes should be thrown out because “people are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections.” She also cited “the malfunction of 87 voting machines.”

There were objections against the votes in at least nine states. To his credit, Vice President Joe Biden rejected each objection on procedural grounds, stating that “there is no debate” and “it is over.”

Then as now, each member of Congress was within his or her rights to make an objection. But the objections were naïve at best, shameless at worst. Either way, the readiness of members of Congress to disenfranchise millions of Americans was disconcerting…..

The NYT article went on to say Hillary conceded, but so did Trump — as much as Hillary did:

“Rigged” Election Claims | Trump 2020 vs Clinton 2016

Not only that, but, Also, remember, more “unfaithful” electors went to Hillary than they did Trump. An often forgotten stat.

DEM VS. GOP FAITHFULNESS

GATEWAY PUNDIT did what I wanted to do… and GP notes the following: “…Hillary Clinton lost more electors than any politician in the last 100 years. Not since 1912 has a candidate lost more electors.” The Final Count:

8 Clinton defectors

  • 4 WA (successful)
  • 1 HI (successful)
  • 1 MN (attempted)
  • 1 ME (attempted)
  • 1 CO (attempted)

2 Trump defectors

  • TX (successful)

Gateway Pundit goes on to list past “unfaithful electors” of the past, a great summary of our history in this regard, here’s the list:

The popular belief was that many electorates were going to defect (called, “unfaithful”) from Trump. In the end, more “unfaithful electorates” defected from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. I find this HILARIOUS! Why? Because Trump even came out a winner in this arena as well. As Powerline notes, only two electors were “unfaithful” to Trump. Four ignored Clinton’s win in their states. In fact, there would have been more unfaithful electorates for Hillary if state law didn’t prohibit it, like the “chaos” over state rules in Colorado:

(MORE AT RPT)

THE BIG LIE MSNBC

Katie Phang is still [April 2023] saying that Trump stole the election!

RPT FLASHBACK

DEMOCRATS WERE FOR CHALLENGING ELECTORS
BEFORE BEING AGAINST IT

  • The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

Over the past 20 years, Democrats have on three separate occasions objected to the validity of electoral votes on the floor of Congress. Wednesday, Jan. 6, will mark the first time Republicans choose do so in the past two decades.

(DAILY WIRE)

My sons and I have discussed the January 6th issues, and, some historical aspects as well. Firstly, people saying Trump should be impeached are just as radical as the people breaking into the Capital. The throwing around of the “sedition” label is funny, and shows how people are not aware of the recent history of the lawful process of debate in Congress about just such topic. Here is one blogger noting Chuck Todd’s biased lack of awareness:

…NBC host Chuck Todd, who is always in the running to overtake CNN’s Brian Stelter as the dumbest newsman in the news media, had it out with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) over a number of Republican members of Congress who are planning to dispute the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election due to questions of massive election fraud.

After being accused of trying to thwart the democratic process, Johnson hit back by telling sleepy eyes Todd that they are trying to protect it.

“We are not acting to thwart the democratic process, we are acting to protect it,” Johnson said to Todd.

[….]

Todd and others in the Fake News media are acting like the Republicans contesting the election results is an unprecedented affair.

Let me remind them that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won.

Lest they forget that the House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and President Trump’s win in 2016.…

(DJ-MEDIA)

PJ-MEDIA however has an excellent notation of this history when they point out Democrats outrage that Republicans objected to the certification of electoral votes. “It’s ‘conspiracy and fantasy,’ says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.” PJ further states,

“The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic,” the New York Democrat said. “The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting.”

“This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on the fact and reason—not conspiracy and fantasy,” he added.

There’s only one problem with Chucky’s “argument based on fact and reason.” Democrats have been challenging the electoral vote certification for two decades.

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin appears to be even more incensed at Senator Josh Hawley’s plan to object to the Electoral College vote.

Fox News:

“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”

Brave Sir Dick seems to forget he was singing a different tune in 2005. Then, it was Democrats questioning the results of the Ohio vote, which went narrowly for George Bush.

Durbin had words of praise for Boxer then:

“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”

In fact, the Ohio electoral vote challenge was only the beginning. Rumors and conspiracy theories swirled around the outcome on election night that saw Bush winning Ohio by a close, but the surprisingly comfortable margin of  120,000 votes. So why are so many of these headlines familiar to us today?

(READ THE REST)

And THE BLAZE also referenced it’s readers to the same issues in their post (BTW, these are the two videos I used for my upload):

TheBlaze’s Chris Enloe noted this weekend that while Democrats are rebuking Republicans for planning Wednesday to oppose the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory due to fraud concerns, Democrats themselves have a robust history of doing that very thing.

And a damning, resurfaced video underscores what’s already on the public record.

The video is a compilation of clips from congressional sessions following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, both won by Republican George W. Bush — and in the clips Democrats launched protests against Bush’s electoral votes.

[….]

That wasn’t all. The Washington Post reported that during the January 2001 session, words such as “fraud” and “disenfranchisement” were heard above Republicans calling for “regular order.”

More from the paper:

The Democratic protest was led by Black Caucus members who share the feeling among black leaders that votes in the largely African American precincts overwhelmingly carried by [then-Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore were not counted because of faulty voting machines, illicit challenges to black voters and other factors.

“It’s a sad day in America,” Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said as he turned toward Gore. “The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but . . . ” Gore replied.

At the end of their protest, about a dozen members of the Black Caucus walked out of the House chamber as the roll call of the states continued.

(THE BLAZE)

Nuclear Power – Still Our Best Hope

Published by Papa Giorgio

While I disagree with the points regarding the “Climate Crisis,” this video is solid in it’s dealing with the fears of nuclear power safety issues and how many are frightened by misinformation. They link to two other videos that are worth a watch as well. They are:

  • Worst Nuclear Accidents in History (YOUTUBE);
  • The Economics of Nuclear Energy (YOUTUBE).

The Truth About Nuclear Energy

How Dangerous Is Nuclear Waste?

Even environmentalists concede that nuclear power is a clean source of abundant, reliable energy. But they stop short of supporting it. Why? Because of the “waste problem.” But how real are their concerns? James Meigs, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, answers this question.

Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe

If you truly want to save the planet from global warming, there’s one energy source that can do it. It’s not wind or solar. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. So what is it? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, has the answer in this important video.

The above video mentioned Will Siri, the President of the Sierra Club a few decades ago. Here is an excerpt from Michael Shellenberger’s article from FORBES (via CLIMATE DEPOT):

…In the mid-1960s, the Sierra Club supported the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to replace fossil fuels. “Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation,” argued Sierra Club President Will Siri in 1966.

“Cheap energy in unlimited quantities is one of the chief factors allowing a large, rapidly growing population to set aside wildlands, open space and lands of high-scenic value,” added Siri, who was a biophysicist, mountaineer, and veteran of the Manhattan Project….

* THE BONUS BELOW WILL EXPLAIN THE FRUITION OF WILL SIRI’S POSITION – JUMP

And there is a letter the ANS is floating around as well that many are signing:

The letter: Already signed by such notables as James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Richard Muller, Meredith Angwin, and James Hopf, the Generation Atomic letter notes that, in its early years, the Sierra Club supported nuclear technology.

“Early in the technology’s history, the Sierra Club recognized nuclear energy’s power-dense and emission-free environmental benefits,” the letter states. “Many of the Sierra Club’s members at the time were strong advocates for the energy source. Among them were Will Siri, the club’s president at the time, and the photographer and Sierra Club board member Ansel Adams.”

(AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY)

The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

Nuclear waste is scary. Maybe you’ve seen it as glowing green goop in The Simpsons, or as a radioactive threat on the news. Either way, you likely know it has been a major block to the use and improvement of nuclear power. Over the last few decades, experts, politicians and the public have had heated debates over what to do with this radioactive material created by nuclear power plants.

But what if there were a way to not just store nuclear waste, but actually USE it?

This video is about the effort to make electricity out of nuclear waste. Really. It turns out, we developed the tools to do this decades ago. This story is about a technology we left behind and the people who want to bring it back.

This Environmentalist Says Only Nuclear Power Can Save Us Now

Michael Shellenberger believes The Green New Deal’s focus on wind and solar is a waste of time and money.

Calling climate change an existential threat to humanity, congressional Democrats introduced a policy proposal in February called the Green New Deal, which would mandate that 100 percent of U.S. energy production come from “clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources” like wind and solar by the year 2050.

But some environmentalists say Green New Dealers are neglecting one obvious source of abundant clean energy already available: Nuclear power, which an accompanying Green New Deal FAQ explicitly states should be phased out alongside fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal.

“If you want to save the natural environment, you just use nuclear. You grow more food on less land, and people live in cities. It’s not rocket science,” says Shellenberger. “The idea that people need to stay poor… that’s just a reactionary social philosophy that they then dress up as a kind of environmentalism.”

Watch the above video to learn more about the history of nuclear energy and to hear more from Shellenberger about his case for nuclear, as well as his response to concerns about radiation, nuclear weapons, and the economic viability of nuclear energy. The video also features solar energy advocate Ed Smeloff, who served on the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District board during the shutdown of California’s Rancho Seco nuclear plant and who makes the argument that nuclear power simply can’t compete in the marketplace.

PANDORA’S PROMISE:

This documentary film is about nuclear energy and other energy sources. Its central argument is that nuclear power, which still faces historical opposition from environmentalists, is a relatively safe and clean energy source which can help mitigate the serious problem of anthropogenic global warming. The film emphasize that more deaths is caused by coal powered power plants than nuclear power plants.

— PART ONE —

— PART TWO —

— PART THREE —

The below deals with the broken promises and the amount of land in the United States in order to reach a “net zero” dream. This is actually merely a combining of a few of my past posts under one umbrella.

* BONUS *

“Apocalypse Never” – Michael Shellenberger Talks With Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager had Michael Shellenberger on his show to discuss his new book entitled “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” (Amazon: ). In an article by Michael, you see him transitioning into a “Bjorn Lomborg” type of category. Here is the opening paragraph of that article:

  • On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. (ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS)

Facts through reason and common sense have made it through to this gentleman, and this is nice to hear. In another review of the book, it is noted that Mr. Shellenberger is a long time environmentalist and contributed “rationalism [that] is in woefully short supply in present day environmental discourse. Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never succeeds in providing a welcome boost” Here is the opening of that review:

The way to a cleaner, sustainable planet is not to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power, but rather to expand their use, especially in developing countries to bring economic growth and prosperity, the way such sources did for the developed world.

This is one of the primary themes in the new book, Apocalypse Never, written not by a “climate denier” or “corporate shill.” Instead, author Michael Shellenberger is a 30-year environmental activist with street cred in various causes including saving California’s redwood forests and co-founding a “progressive Democratic, labor-environment push” in 2002 for the New Apollo Project, a renewable energy initiative that long predated the Green New Deal. He also is a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment.”…..

(PA PUNDITS – Peter Murphy)

Do We Have to Destroy the Earth to Save It?

Do wind turbines and solar farms hold the keys to saving the environment? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress and noted climate activist, used to think so. Now he’s not so sure. He explains why in this important video. (See my previous Prager audio with Michael)

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Shellenberger

  • “It was the West’s focus on healing the planet with ‘soft energy’ renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.” — Michael Shellenberger

Armstrong and Getty read some of Michael Shellenberger’s article titled, “The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin“. An article of similar nature is found over at THE FEDERALIST, and it is titled: “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy“.

Both are must reads.

State Sized Chunks Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy

Why were federal tax subsidies extended for wind and solar by Congress? Again. For the umpteenth time! We are against subsidies because they distort markets. Those politicians who support these market-distorting policies should at least be forced to answer the question: “How much is enough?” Taxpayers have been subsidizing wind and solar corporations for more than 40 years! These companies have gotten fat and happy on your money, and Congress keeps giving them more of it. This video is based on a Texas Public Policy Foundation report that explains why it’s long past time to stop wind and solar from stuffing their bank accounts with your tax dollars.

  • To give you a sense of scale, to replace the energy from one average natural gas well, which sits on about four acres of land, would require 2,500 acres of wind turbines. That is a massive amount of land. You would have to cover this entire nation with wind turbines in an attempt to replace the electricity that we generate from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, and even that would not get the job done. (CFACT)

This is from a recent BLOOMBERG article:

At his international climate summit in April, President Joe Biden vowed to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. The goal will require sweeping changes in the power generation, transportation and manufacturing sectors. It will also require a lot of land.

Wind farms, solar installations and other forms of clean power tend to take up more space on a per-watt basis than their fossil-fuel-burning brethren. A 200-megawatt wind farm, for instance, might require spreading turbines over 13 square miles (36 square kilometres). A natural-gas power plant with that same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.

Achieving Biden’s goal will require aggressively building more wind and solar farms, in many cases combined with giant batteries. To fulfill his vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota, according to Princeton University estimates and an analysis by Bloomberg News. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.

Earth Day 2021 is April 22nd. Therefore, eco-activist groups will be preaching the gospel of wind & solar power and the importance of biodiversity. What those trying to “save the planet” fail to understand (or more likely ignore) is that these two priorities are in direct conflict. Wind & solar require far more land than nuclear, natural gas and coal power. They are also far more destructive to regions of high biodiversity as well as large birds, bats and endangered species. As we celebrate Earth Day, let’s consider the significant environmental consequences of attempting to provide electricity through low density, unreliable sunshine and breezes.

Vice President Joe Biden aims to be the most progressive president on the issue of climate change. The man who spent most of 2020 hiding in the basement believes the future of energy is renewable energy like wind and solar. Biden should go back to the basement, watch Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans,” and rethink his advocacy for renewable energy. Wind and solar are not the answer, and the idea of converting our fossil fuel-based economy into renewables could be a devastating take-down to society.

Are we heading toward an all-renewable energy future, spearheaded by wind and solar? Or are those energy sources wholly inadequate for the task? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Cloud Revolution, compares the energy dream to the energy reality.

Remember when Google joined the common sense era?

FLASHBACK

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

  • What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? (SPETRUM)
  • Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ (WATTS UP WITH THAT)
  • Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy (RPT)
  • Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful (RPT)

Juneteenth Celebrates the Grand Ol’ Party’s Proud History

Published by Papa Giorgio

(The “Black National Anthem” is related to this holiday… JUMP TO THAT.) The BABYLON BEE hits the nail on the head! They use sarcasm to show the way to the GOP’s proud history!

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate has unanimously passed a resolution to recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday, commemorating the glorious day Republicans freed the last of the Democrats’ slaves. 

“We are so proud to show the world how not racist we are by officially recognizing the day the Republicans came charging in to free all our slaves,” said Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer. “Yeah– we Democrats did a little ‘whoopsie’ with that whole slavery thing, but the Republicans corrected it. Thanks, Republicans!” 

During this year’s Juneteenth, the nation will gather to celebrate the American political party that was founded on protecting human rights of people of all skin colors. Democrats around the country will write letters of apology and organize celebrations for the vast network of Christians, Catholics, Quakers, and Republicans who fought and died to end the scourge of slavery in America. 

Congress has also approved the building of a giant elephant statue in D.C. to honor the party responsible for the freeing of slaves from Democrat plantations. 

Biden has confirmed he will organize a celebration at the White House after he lays a wreath on the grave of his best friend Robert Byrd.

FIRST, two 5-minute videos on the Republican’s proud history that led to JUNETEENTH

The Inconvenient Truth
About the Democrat Party

The Inconvenient Truth
About the Republican Party

Last year, President Joe Biden made Juneteenth the newest federal holiday. The day is said to commemorate slaves in Texas hearing the news of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and of their impending freedom on June 19, 1865. Let’s set aside the fact the 13th Amendment wasn’t ratified until December 1865 and was not officially banned in President Biden’s home state of Delaware until 1901. June 19, 2020, was the first time that many Americans heard the word Juneteenth, but it wasn’t in connection with freed slaves from a century and a half ago, it was a part of the protests following the death of George Floyd. Jason believes the connection to Floyd is problematic. “I suspect most people don’t fully comprehend or get Juneteenth. It’s a national holiday because of the death of George Floyd, not because our political leaders had a sincere interest in celebrating the emancipation of slaves in Texas or across the South.” Jason has an alternative to the polarizing, over-politicized holiday. “Fearless” contributor Delano Squires shares his thoughts and discusses the problem with the colors red, green, and black being associated with Juneteenth. “Fearless” soldier Dave Shannon answers the question of whether America will ever accept the holiday as a legitimate one. Plus, Shemeka Michelle has some words for Joy Reid.

The following comes by way of AMERICAN DEFENSE NEWS:

ANALYSIS – While the Left wants to make the heretofore little-known date of June 19, 1965, a new holiday to bash America due to its partial history of slavery, Juneteenth (as it is now known) is not the date slavery ended in the United States.

Or the day the last slaves were freed.

[….]

Juneteenth is actually only a day to celebrate a great Republican president’s historic message freeing the slaves finally reaching the Confederate state of Texas.

That great Republican president was of course, Abraham Lincoln, and his historic message was the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863.

As the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war, Lincoln’s proclamation declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”

So, January 1, 1963, could be a great day to celebrate. But despite Lincoln’s’ message, the reality or ending slavery took a while longer.

So, what exactly is Juneteenth about?

Well, this latest federal holiday, created last year when President Biden signed legislation that made Juneteenth a federal holiday in the wake of the Black Lives Matters’ (BLM) 2020 ‘summer of love’ and riots, marks the day residents of Galveston received General Orders No. 3, which freed slaves in Texas.

On June 19, 1865, about two months after the Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Va., Gordon Granger, a Union general, arrived in Galveston, Texas, the last remaining Confederate state, to inform enslaved black Americans of their freedom and that the Civil War had ended.

That is the day slavery officially ended in the Confederate South.

However, that wasn’t the end of slavery in America. That didn’t come until a full six months later on December 6, 1865.

And that is another great day to celebrate.

That is the date the last American slaves in two remaining Union states (Kentucky which was nominally part of the Union and Biden’s home state of Delaware) were officially freed when the 13th Amendment was ratified and officially proclaimed.

That’s the real date slavery fully ended in America.

So, while Juneteenth has some significance for Texas and the Confederacy, it’s neither the day announcing the end of slavery by a great Republican President on January 1, 1963, nor the date slavery was finally ended in the entire United States on December 6, 1865.

It is the date Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves finally reached Texas though. The last Confederate state standing.

JUNETEENTH is related to the …

BLACK NATIONAL ANTHEM:

BILL MAHER

New Rule: We need to unite as one nation, who come together and sing one anthem. It doesn’t have to be the one we currently use, but it has to be just one.

HODGE TWINS

NFL To Play “BLACK NATIONAL ANTHEM” Before National Anthem

Biden’s War on Gas and Oil Drilling

Published by Papa Giorgio

(PART ONE) The typical course of societal response to most government impositions is for small, aware, vocal groups to speak out against them, fail to stop them, and become frustrated as the rest of the population adopts normalcy bias, assumes the changes are just “natural,” and new generations are born into the mad system, never knowing what was destroyed and never seeing the lost opportunities that freedom could have offered.

(PART TWO) Writing about political activity is a never-ending exercise, akin to “demonology” – the chronicling of evil. But, thankfully, some courageous souls go to the trouble of doing the heavy lifting to report on areas of particular interest to them. And in this second of two parts looking at the first two years of Biden Administration attacks on oil and gas energy provision, one can thank Institute for Energy Research (IER) head Thomas Pyle for doing the “heavy lifting” of compiling the top 150, and putting them in chronological order.

(PART THREE) Last week, MRCTV produced two articles and videos outlining the numerous attacks against energy independence and competition Joe Biden’s Administration has committed since he entered office in January of 2021. The bulk of those attacks were against inexpensive acquisition, refining, and transport of petrochemical fuels such as oil and natural gas. And now, he’s added another to the ever-expanding list.

“Tolerant” Christianity Demands Rejecting the Bible

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an excellent video showing how “Christians” have to distort the clear Word of God [the Bible for you dummies] to be inclusive to adopting Transgender ideology. The latter trumps the former to these apostates.

Here is a play off the WHATEVER episode:

Joe Biden’s “Blood Libel” (Democrat’s Racial Division)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a long “Preface” before the other main parts of reading lying ahead of the patient coffee drinkers/readers. And it comes via the indomitable Thomas Sowell:

ARE RACE RIOTS NEWS? (July 17, 2012)

When I first saw a book with the title, “White Girl Bleed A Lot” by Colin Flaherty, I instantly knew what it was about, even though I had not seen the book reviewed anywhere, and knew nothing about the author.

That is because I had encountered that phrase before, while doing research for the four new chapters on intellectuals and race that I added to the revised edition of my own book, “Intellectuals and Society,” published this year.

That phrase was spoken by a member of a mob of young blacks who attacked whites at random at a Fourth of July celebration in Milwaukee last year. What I was appalled to learn, in the course of my research, was that such race riots have occurred in other cities across the United States in recent years — and that the national mainstream media usually ignore these riots.

Where the violence is too widespread and too widely known locally to be ignored, both the local media and public officials often describe what happened as unspecified “young people” attacking unspecified victims for unspecified reasons. But videos of the attacks often reveal both the racial nature of these attacks and the racial hostility expressed by the attackers.

Are race riots not news?

Ignoring racial violence only guarantees that it will get worse. The Chicago Tribune has publicly rationalized its filtering out of any racial identification of attackers and their victims, even though the media do not hesitate to mention race when decrying statistical disparities in arrest or imprisonment rates.

Such mob attacks have become so frequent in Chicago that officials promoting conventions there have recently complained to the mayor that the city is going to lose business if such widespread violence is not brought under control.

But neither these officials nor the mayor nor most of the media use that four-letter word, “race.” It would not be politically correct or politically convenient in an election year.

Reading Colin Flaherty’s book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is even greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities across America.

Flaherty’s previous writings have won him praise and awards, but this book has been met largely with silence or abuse. However much ignoring the ugly realities that his book reveals may serve the interests of the media or politicians, a cover-up is a huge disservice to everyone else — whether black, white or whatever.

Even the young hoodlums who launch these mass attacks on strangers would be better off to be stopped now, rather than continue on a path of escalating violence that can lead to a lifetime behind bars or to the execution chamber.

The dangers to the nation as a whole are an even bigger problem. The truth has a way of eventually coming out, in spite of media silence and politicians’ spin. If the truth becomes widely known, and a white backlash follows, turning one-way race riots into two-way race riots, then a cycle of revenge and counter-revenge can spiral out of control, as has already happened in too many other countries around the world.

Most blacks and most whites in the United States today get along with each other. But what is chilling is how often in history racial or ethnic groups that co-existed peacefully for generations — often as neighbors — have suddenly turned on each other with lethal violence.

In the middle of the 20th century, Sri Lanka had a level of mutual respect and even friendship between its majority and minority communities that was rightly held up to the world as a model. Yet this situation degenerated over the years into polarization and violence that escalated into a civil war that lasted for decades, with unspeakable atrocities on both sides.

All it took were clever demagogues and gullible followers. We already have both. What it will take to nip in the bud the small but widely spreading race riots will be some serious leadership in many quarters and that rarest of all things in politics, honesty.

Race hustlers and mob inciters like Al Sharpton represent such polarizing forces in America today. Yet Sharpton has become a White House adviser, and Attorney General Eric Holder has been photographed literally embracing him.

I read the below NATIONAL REVIEW article because of ACE OF SPADES this morning. He noted this in his “morning post”. I will excerpt the entire NA article as well as a large portion of ACE’s post. Strap in, this is a reading post:

Good morning, kids. Over 50 years ago, a little known leftist who, given the right circumstances could have risen to take his place in the hall of infamy among the world’s bloodiest leftists was, fortunately for us, stopped cold after he and his followers only got to slaughter a handful of people. His heroes, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and second tier thugs like the Castros, Ceaucescu, Honecker, Pol Pot, Mugabe and others collectively consigned well over 100 million lives to mass graves and crematoria over the course of 100 years. And their heirs are still going.

This individual, perhaps some of you might have guessed was Charles Manson. Poor Charlie. He was 50 years ahead of his time. Sick and whacked out as he was, given the nature of today’s Democrat Party, the media and academia, and the state of our society, culture and government, had he caught a break like Billy “free as a bird, guilty as sin” Ayers, he might very well be near the top of the heap today.

Doubt me? Look at what is happening both in terms of what this party is doing with the erasure of our border, the de-criminalization of crime and the persecution of that segment of society that has become, to put it mildly, politically disfavored, and worse, those who actively fight back. Manson’s idea was to go on a killing spree and leave clues that pointed to the Black Panthers, and when the dust settled after their ultimate victory in the ensuing race war, blacks would be too stupid to govern themselves and so he and his ilk would emerge from the Southern California desert to rule them.

Sound crazy? Look what the aforementioned leftist political, academic, media complex is fomenting and in fact has been fomenting since Manson’s time. Sow seeds of discontent and division by instituting policies and propaganda that create the conditions for the race war, blame one group of people for the misery and squalor of the other, then ride in to the rescue.

[So-called quote-unquote “president”] Joe Biden told black graduates at Howard University on Saturday that “the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy,” adding that he was not just saying that because they were black.

Biden made his remarks, ironically, during a passage about national unity (via White House transcript):

But on the best days, enough of us have the guts and the hearts to st- — to stand up for the best in us.  To choose love over hate, unity over disunion, progress over retreat.  To stand up against the poison of white supremacy, as I did in my Inaugural Address — to single it out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy.  (Applause.)

And I’m not saying this because I’m at a Black HBCU.  I say it wherever I go.

To stand up for truth over lies — lies told for power and profit.

Biden also repeated the “fine people hoax,” repeating — almost verbatim — his false claim, recycled constantly since his campaign launch in 2019 — the lie that then-President Donald Trump praised neo-Nazis who rioted in Charlottesville, Virginia, as “very fine people.”

MEDIA BREAK

This is my shortest version of this “blood libel” — rightly called:

/MEDIA BREAK

Blood, meet libel. Kudos to the medical team for giving him the right cocktail that prevented him from calling anyone “boy.” Not to be outdone, the bald-headed governmental obersturmbahnfuhrer in charge of erasing our border, Mayorkas double down on this garbage.

Host Jonathan Capehart asked, Today marks one year since white supremacists opened fire in a black neighborhood at the Top Supermarket in Buffalo. The president, yesterday at his commencement address for Howard University graduates, called white supremacy the major domestic terrorist threat in this country. Is that correct? ”

Mayorkas said, “It tragically is. And the terrorism context, domestic violent extremism is our greatest threat right now. Individuals are driven to violence because of ideologies of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives, personal grievances. Regrettably, we have seen a rise in white supremacy. The principal under lying our work is that when one community is targeted, Jonathan, when one community is targeted, we as a country are targeted.”

I guess it’s “white supremacy” that’s to blame for a violent, black thug with a rap sheet longer than my arm including attempted kidnapping and multiple assaults being rightfully subdued and dare I say it, dispatched from this mortal coil, when he loudly threatened to kill people in a subway car. And no cops in sight.

Jordan Neely was living his life by a narrative that facilitated violence and human decay. Living on the street, begging and threatening those who didn’t give, taking drugs, hurting, rather than contributing to society, were all acceptable plot points in that narrative. Those who give money to homeless panhandlers subsidize this narrative. Leftists who denigrate America and despise those of us who “work hard and play by the rules” advance this narrative.

Neely was not the only New Yorker living with trauma. On January 15, 2022, Michelle Go, an Asian-American woman “who did everything right,” was pushed in front of a subway train by an assailant sharing significant demographic details with Neely. Martial Simon was a homeless black man and said to be mentally ill. The subway murder of a good woman, Michelle Go, received a fraction of the attention allotted to Neely.

In April, 2022, Frank James mounted a terror attack in a subway car. He shot ten people. James was also black. On April 11, 2023, a teenager was shot dead on the subway; authorities say his death is most likely related to gang violence in a largely black housing project. On or before December 10, 2022, a man was stabbed to death on the subway. On October 23, 2022, video was released showing a black man shoving a man onto a subway track.

The New York City subway system is a deadly place. Crimes are disproportionately committed by black men. Passengers take that information with them when they enter the subway. When Neely, as reports indicate, began shouting in an irrational and threatening manner, passengers went into “fight or flight” mode. The three men who restrained Neely worked to keep him immobilized until police arrived.

The New York Times has been working hard at selling Neely as a Christ figure and cruel, cold, capitalist, white supremacist America as the assassin who did him in. In a surprise move, New York Times readers are having none of it.

“A Subway Killing Stuns and Divides New Yorkers,” the Times reported, on May 4, 2023. Neely’s death, some say, “was a heinous act of public violence to be swiftly prosecuted, and represented a failure by the city to care for people with serious mental illness.” The short article referenced “mental illness” five times and “emotional illness” one time. Clearly, “mental illness” is the new euphemism for “violent, anti-social criminality.”

Times readers, in the comments section, voiced a very different narrative from that of the Times itself. The following excerpts are from the nine comments voted “most popular” by Times readers. . .

. . . “Everyone who rides the subway and everyone outside of a few far left and/or craving attention and/or virtue signaling people agree: it’s a tragedy but the responsibility lies with the city because people should not be threatened or harassed or scared on the subways. No one has a ‘right’ to do that. The ex-Marine was attempting to protect others from someone who was violating and threatening others. It’s a tragedy, but the Marine did nothing wrong.”

“no mention that he had … punched a 67 year old woman in the face.”

“Contrary to progressive doctrine, law abiding people do not have to pretend that drug addicts are victims or that violent mentally ill folks pose no threat.”

“AOC is a member of Congress, and knows nothing about this case other than what she’s read or heard, just like the rest of us. That she feels comfortable pre-judging the case speaks volumes. And remember that Al Sharpton also called for the district attorney to be charged in the Twana Brawley case. . . ”

. . . There are thousands more upvotes awarded to hundreds of more comments on this and other Times articles. The overwhelming vox populi agree: Daniel Penny was a Good Samaritan. Jordan Neely was a threat. His death was a tragedy, but larger forces ended his life, and Penny cannot be held responsible for those larger forces. I identify those larger forces as the narratives by which people choose to live, and teach their children to live.

When it comes to Neely, both the Left and the Right claim that they want to live in a society with more Good Samaritans. Only one side is telling the truth. The Left is lying. Here’s why. Good Samaritans, to do their work, require a society where members share and act on the same narrative, and that has to be a narrative that supports Good Samaritan actions. If you want to take from society, you have to give to society. Neely took, but he gave back violence, self-indulgence, self-destruction, and hate.

Leftists support the narratives that killed Neely even more surely than the Marine’s restraint. Broken families, no standards for behavior, a complete rejection of personal responsibility for anti-social acts, drug use, living on the street, panhandling, refusing needed mental health treatment, insistence that America is an unjust place and cultivating despair, are all championed by the Left.

Projection ain’t just a river in Egypt as Maoist bint Symone Sanders demonstrates.

MSNBC host Symone Sanders gave a dire warning to her followers on Saturday, claiming that the Supreme Court was poised to make a series of radical decisions — ranging from outlawing Black History to allowing daycares to refuse Jewish children.

Sanders, who served as a prominent member of Joe Biden’s campaign before becoming the chief spokeswoman for [spurious] Vice President Kamala Harris, argued that it was “not hyperbole” to suggest that the current court might use the cases before it to do these things and worse. . .

. . . “Given the track record of this court, you all, this is not hyperbole. Dr. Maya Angelou said, when people show you who they are, believe them the first time,” she concluded. “We have seen the damage that this conservative Supreme Court majority can do, so brace yourselves, folks, the decisions are coming.”

That right there would be comedy gold, considering everything we have experienced since the coming of Obama. Except, everything this cheap shit-whore is bitching about is exactly what Americans – real ones without the hyphenations and pronouns – have been enduring in schools and the workplace with growing and alarming frequency. And now in the courts, as Daniel Penny and Donald Trump to name but a few are about to discover.

Somewhere in hell, ol’ Charlie Manson is shaking his head, and rubbing his hands in glee.

This made me hunt down an article I remember reading when Manson died. It is at THE NATIONAL REVIEW (November 20, 2017) and is worth reading through. IMHO:

The history of the postwar period is the history of the struggle against Communism. What’s sometimes forgotten — conveniently forgotten — is that our victory in that struggle was far from assured, and that a substantial swath of the Western intelligentsia and much of its celebrity culture was on the other side. It wasn’t just Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky, Walter Duranty and Lincoln Steffens. (“I have been to the future,” Steffens wrote after a visit to the Soviet Union, “and it works.”) Eventually, 100 million people would die under Communism as part of the longest and widest campaign of mass murder in recorded human history. As a phenomenon of specifically nuclear terror, the Cold War lasted from 1949, when the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb thanks to the help of the American leftists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, until 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.

Precisely in the middle of that period came the strange career of Charles Milles Manson, who has just died in a California hospital at the age of 83.

Manson’s death, like his life, was wrapped up in the radical politics of the 1960s. He died of natural causes, his execution having been set aside as part of the temporarily successful progressive campaign against the death penalty in the 1970s.

Just as it is easy to forget how pro-Soviet the American Left was at times, it is easy to forget how pro-Manson American radicals were. “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!” That was the assessment of Bernardine Dohrn, the champagne radical who, with her husband, Bill Ayers, participated in a campaign of domestic terrorism, including bombings, and later became cozy with Barack Obama, hosting events for the aspiring politician in her home. The “pigs” she referred to included Sharon Tate, an actress who was eight months pregnant at the time. She was murdered and mutilated. The word “PIG” was scrawled on the wall in her blood, and the father of her child, filmmaker Roman Polanski (to this day still on the run for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl), posed in front of that scene for a Life magazine photographer. Dohrn would later join a very prestigious Chicago law firm, Sidley Austin, and later worked as a professor of law at Northwestern University — remarkable accomplishments for a woman without a law license. She passed the bar, and Illinois was willing to overlook her criminal conviction, but she refused to apologize for her role in the terrorist campaign that resulted in several deaths. She and her husband became legal guardians of the child of two of their colleagues, who went to prison on murder charges for their role in a homicidal armored-car robbery carried out by the May the 19th Communist Organization, a clique of New York leftists who named their organization in honor of Ho Chi Minh’s birthday.

Dohrn wasn’t the only Manson admirer of her time. Other Weathermen hoisted a “Manson Power” banner in 1969 when they issued their declaration of war on the United States, and Rolling Stone’s coverage of the man and his crimes — it dedicated a special issue to him — was at times fawning. The magazine depicted him on its cover as the thing he’d always wanted to be: a rock star. A radical newspaper named him “Man of the Year.” Jerry Rubin, the celebrated anti-war activist, said: “I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV.” That cherub face later had a swastika carved into it. “His words and courage inspired us,” Rubin said.

Manson believed he was sent to inspire an apocalyptic race war. The radicals of the period wanted a race war, too, and they sometimes got a little bit of one: There were 159 race riots in 1967. In Detroit alone, 43 people died in those riots. Lyndon Johnson was so spooked he sent in the 82nd Airborne to put a lid on it.

Riots and snipers. Assassinations. Lyndon Johnson. Dohrn and Ayers and “Days of Rage.” Rubin and his anti-Vietnam marches. Rolling Stone’s batty insistence that Charles Manson was a principled social critic. Manson’s cult-messiah shtick. It was all of a piece: The 1960s were an almost entirely joyless period. Go back and look at those Woodstock pictures: Nobody was having any fun. What you see in those pictures is the desperation of people trying to convince themselves they are having a good time. Even the music was joyless, Jimi Hendrix letting his virtuosity go to rot while plonking out a honking flatted fifth, the ugliest chord in music (“diabolus in musica,” they call it) to open “Purple Haze,” the great anthem of the era, a song about confusion. “Nowadays people don’t want you to sing good,” Hendrix wrote in a letter to his father. “They want you to sing sloppy and have a good beat to your songs. That’s what angle I’m going to shoot for. That’s where the money is. So just in case about three or four months from now you might hear a record by me which sounds terrible, don’t feel ashamed, just wait until the money rolls in because every day people are singing worse and worse on purpose and the public buys more and more records.” The Sex Pistols were right about rock ’n’ roll being a swindle.

There were exceptions, of course. As the cities burned and the war raged and the trains to Siberia were packed full of dissidents, the Beach Boys released 20/20, an album in which they attempted to recapture some of their early magic. But it was hard going: Brian Wilson, the genius behind the group, was in a psychiatric hospital at the time. The first single was “Do It Again,” a surf-y revisitation of their early sound, followed by “Bluebirds Over the Mountain,” a pop song from the 1950s recorded by, among others, Ritchie Valens.

  • John Lennon, who ought to have known a cynical operator when he saw one, described Manson as a man who ‘took children in when nobody else would.’

The B-side to that single was “Never Learn Not to Love,” written by Charles Manson. He’d wormed his way into Brian Wilson’s social circle by organizing orgies for him. He wasn’t much of a songwriter, but his songs are still occasionally performed and recorded. The impeccably progressive Henry Rollins produced an album of songs performed by Manson, though it never was released. The two were pen pals for a while. Neil Young had pitched Manson’s music to Warner Bros. John Lennon, who ought to have known a cynical operator when he saw one, described Manson as a man who “took children in when nobody else would.” Not that he was a fan of publicity-stunt mass murders: “I just think a lot of the things he says are true.”

Of course they fell for it. The idealist con is one of the oldest and most lucrative hustles going. The idiot children of the 1960s talked up Charles Manson for the same reason Langston Hughes wrote paeans to Joseph Stalin, for the same reason American progressives still take the side of the Rosenbergs and still think Alger Hiss was framed. Langston Hughes wasn’t a “liberal in a hurry” — he signed a letter of support for Stalin’s purges. Noam Chomsky spent years denying the holocaust in Cambodia, insisting it was the invention of American propagandists. After Fidel Castro was done murdering and pillaging his way through Cuban history, Barack Obama could only find it in his heart to say: “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.”

Pass the crumpets, Bernardine.

Bernardine Dohrn recently gave a speech in Chicago in which she proposed turning the Cook County jail into a park as part of “a city — a world — without jails.” It didn’t quite have the poetry of her earlier work: “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.” Of what possible use could a jail be in the world imagined by such a mind?

PIGS, she called the dead woman and her dead baby. The Weathermen dig it, and what’s another skeleton or two, or another 100 million, beneath the foundations of Utopia? Lenin had a few thoughts on how to go about making an omelet.

“These children that come at you with knives — you taught them,” Manson said. “I didn’t teach them. I just tried to help them stand up.”

These Major Bombshells Are A Problem For Biden

Published by Papa Giorgio

Creepy uncle Joe says it’s not true. Hunter Biden’s own lawyer says it is:

  • “We knew about Hunter. We knew about Joe’s brother, James. But Comer revealing that it could be six or seven Biden family members is massive news.”

Maybe this is why Hunter’s lawyer said opposing things in their counter-suit (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW):

Hunter Biden’s lawyers claim John Paul Mac Isaac invaded the troubled presidential son’s privacy by providing his computer files to allies of former president Donald Trump and members of the media before the 2020 election. The countersuit is a response to Mac Isaac’s lawsuit against Biden and various news outlets who accused the repairman of stealing the computer.

Mac Isaac has said Biden dropped off his laptop for repairs in April 2019 but never came back to retrieve it. The repairman says he reviewed the laptop’s contents and, troubled by what he saw, provided a copy of the laptop hard drive to the FBI in late 2019. He then gave a copy of the computer to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who later shared the documents with the New York Post and other news outlets.

[….]

RPT COMMENT #1 —  So Hunter’s lawyer IS admitting the laptop is Hunter’s!

[….]

“This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden,” the court filing says. “Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.”

[….]

RPT COMMENT #2 — ohhh… look at this dog-faced pony soldier lawyer try to legalese* out of admitting the laptop was Hunter’s!

*Attorneys use Legalese to be able to tell lies about regular people without the regular people being able to understand what’s said about them.