MSNBC propaganda piece

Lawrence O'Donnell, Trump and 911

Comment:

This is pretty slick propaganda and history revisionism. All of a sudden, George W. Bush is a star, because MSNBC and Lawrence O'Donnell can use him. That's what I saw. Ostensibly, Lawrence O'Donnell is really grieved at Trump's claimed lies about 911. There is no iron-clad proof offered here that Trump did indeed lie about it. Just a claim. Also a claim that O'Donnell was really heartbroken about 911 himself.

Back to George W. Bush--- it was this same O'Donnell that tore him a new one on the subject of Bush while he was President. This was the type of thing that he did all the time on Bush. What did Bush do? He let them destroy him that's what. Just hardly anything at all to defend himself. After all of what they said about him, he allows himself to be used in this slick propaganda piece. O'Donnell claims also that Trump was trying to steal other's grief. How the hell do you do that? I don't know how you steal somebody else's grief.

I do sense that grief was being exploited by a number of people on the left, who didn't seem to be so heartbroken at the time. The piece shows Clinton and Obama at the 911 ceremonies, or so it appeared. O'Donnell mentions that Trump wasn't there, insinuating strongly that Trump didn't care and was callous about it. So not only was he supposedly stealing their grief, according to O'Donnell, he was just exploiting it for his own purpose. Note that that was what O'Donnell was doing himself. Why was it all about Trump??? Because Trump, like Bush was, is important. That is what O'Donnell really cares about. --- Not the country, not anybody's grief. Only in using it for politics. After all, isn't that what this entire piece was all about? Was it really about grief of that time? Or just looking good on the cameras?

If Trump really did lie, then it isn't good. But there is also a lie being told by the leftists, like O'Donnell. The lie is that they were just using 911 for politics, just the kind of thing that they were claiming that Trump was doing. If they really cared about preventing disasters like 911, they would POLICE THE DAMNED BORDER. If the terrorists cannot get in, they cannot hijack planes and ram them into buildings. Their crododile tears do not impress me. They are more concerned about how to use events like this to exploit for politics. That doesn't have to be proven, it is plainly there on the screen.

Moderation

Nothing moderate about what these 10 people did.

Evidently, the author of the piece wants to have something like the second impeachment of Trump appear to be the "moderate" position. By implication, anyone who is opposed must be "extreme".

Something tells me that the commies are feeling a little uncomfortable with their extraordinary power grab. Talking about "extreme". These folks have several hundred people in the dungeon for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The "insurrection" claim was "reasonable" in this twisted universe they live in. For that reason, the prisoners are "too dangerous" to be set free. By and large, these prisoners don't have criminal records of any kind. But the reasonable and "moderate" ones think it proper that their rights be abrogated.

So Trump is happy that one of these ten jackasses won't be running? They want to make a big deal out of that? Well, there is one problem right off the top. An opposition party should oppose. Novel idea, I am sure, but if they are going to join the commies, why not be up front and honest about it?

The commies are trying to leverage a riot that they may have had a hand in--- in order to seize totalitarian control. But they are "moderates". You cannot question them, even though that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, because that would be "extreme".

It is the politics of shut-uppery gone berserk.

According to the commies, the goal posts are always moving. There is no standard as to what "moderation" actually means. It may mean something entirely different tomorrow. Hence, getting the jab was bad when Orange Man Bad was in office, but now that Corn Pop is there, it is now mandated ( even though Corn Pop promised not to do that).

Reagan made a standard of moderation that they cannot abide. He gave it a permanent value. Moderation is the "ultimate in liberty consistent with order in a civilized society". Nothing extreme about that, and it works forever. But with the commies, the goal posts move every day. It moves because they are not honest people, and they'll admit it in a candid moment, if you are alert.

Ivermectin study in India

Update:

Uttar Pradesh state in India announces they are covid free thanks to Ivermectin.

On a related note, Sweden does better than Israel on Covid, but we won't hear about it on "news" anchor-text

Original post. In August.

Link via Free Republic podcast link and video list on YouTube

The above link bears some explaining. It came to my attention while perusing Free Republic, and I watched the video of the podcast. A list of videos accompanies the video being watched, which is the usual thing. I saw the following video of a study in India with respect to the efficacy of Ivermectin. It is apparently a good study here, probably better than the one being touted for the fake vaccine just recently "approved" by the FDA. Anyway, it is well worth the watch.

With respect to the original link of the podcast mentioned above, it is also quite interesting to watch, and by all means watch it if you can. It may be hard to suppress this type of information forever. The more the word gets out, the better.

India is reported to have had good results with their Ivermectin use. It is hard to suppress that fact. One of the more populated states of India, with a population that approaches that of the USA, has had this usage of Ivermectin for awhile now with good results. The following video is of a study of the efficacy which correlates that information. No reason for any fear mongering campaign against the use of Ivermectin in the USA.

More info

White board doctor: Breakdown of Indian Ivermectin study.

Comment:

This appears to be another perspective on the same study. Pretty much the same result.

Monoclonal antibodies

On monoclonal antibodies, there is this link

and then there's this one.

Comment:

Yesterday, I wrote a couple of very trite expressions on the subject. Here's another trite expression. Seems like that's all I've got on this. One thing that I know, or I think I know, is that neither monoclonal antibodies nor the injections are NECESSARY.

This may not help much, but it is all I need. No monoclonal antibodies for me. And here's the trite expression: "It is a slippery slope."

More than one way to skin a cat

If you stop and consider what the commies are doing, they are trying to get you to believe that their way is the only way. Perhaps what they've forgotten is the old saying about there being more than one way to skin a cat.

This is assuming that the jab is safe and effective. If you want to believe in the jab, then go ahead and believe it. However, a little more critical thinking may lead you to believe that alternatives must be sought out. There's another saying about putting all your eggs in one basket. The commies want you to put all your eggs in their basket. It turns out that their basket is pretty rickety, and may well have a lot of big holes in it. What will happen to those eggs when they fall out? It won't be pretty.

One would think that one's health is pretty important. Yours truly isn't going to trust commies and fascists with something that is pretty important like my health.

Following a leader blindly is just dumb, like in the movie "Idiocracy". If some muckety muck tells you to put Gatorade on crops because plants crave electrolytes, would you believe it? Let's say this muckety muck is some kind of expert, would you still believe it? If one hundred muckety mucks said it, would you believe it? Or would you trust your own judgment yourself? Give me a chance to decide things for myself. I won't put my life in the hands of any muckety muck no matter how smart they are supposed to be, if I am not convinced myself.

No muckety muck is going to do my own thinking for me, if I can help it.

New York Times is just a commie rag now

CTH article about Clinton ties to Russia-hoax and Seth Rich "Arkancide"

Comment:

CTH is saying that the New York Times is protecting Sussman, who is connected to Perkins Coie, who is connected to Hillary. The Clintons have long been noted for the sudden disappearance of those who become a threat to them. Seth Rich was such a person. It all lines up, but the Times cannot let this become well known because... they lie.

Commies just lie all the time. The cover-up is a lie, Hillary tried to frame Trump, and got the entire machinery of the government to line up in the effort. Of course, there will never be any justice for the murder of Seth Rich. It is no longer a country of laws, but a country ruled over with the iron fist of communists--in league with the fascists. They both hate the Republic and will destroy it if they can.

Communists cannot rule by consent, they must have a dictatorship. Even they say as much. They conspired with the Nazis to overthrow the Weimar Republic in Germany, and now are doing the same in league with our homegrown fascists in America.

Reagan was so successful in fighting the commies, but he was also anti-fascist. You can be anti-fascist and anti-communist at the same time, but the commies will always lie about that, and call anybody who opposes them a fascist. The thing to remember about them both is that they lie all the time. It is the only way they can succeed.

Idiocracy

electrolytes

It has electrolytes, don't you know

A comment to the video says==="Ah, America 2021. I knew it was coming, but not this soon."

If you can't find the right bathroom, what didja expect?