The crackpots were right: COVID is a racket
Although I will put my COVID-skeptic credentials up against anyone’s – I tried to organize a public protest on day one of the lockdown – I confess to having seen Big Health’s actions as merely misguided. I was wrong.
The “crackpots” were right. The Big Health involvement did not progress along the Eric Hoffer spectrum from a good cause to a movement with benefits to a racket. It started as a racket, a massive racket that may go down as a Mao-worthy crime against humanity.
As the princeling of America’s reigning Democratic dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has his blind spots, but his dissection of Big Health’s war, not on COVID, but on those who are actually warring with COVID, is this century’s must-read book.
Can the Jimmy V Foundation Survive CRT?
Big Brother is counting.
Overcoming my hard-earned animus towards the network, I muted the commercials and watched chunks of the ACC-Big 10 challenge on ESPN and its sister networks this past week. I trust basketball fans will understand why this long-suffering Purdue alum permitted himself this particular indulgence.
Historically, the one cause I never begrudged ESPN was its work with the Jimmy V Foundation for Cancer Research. The foundation, started in 1993 by ESPN and the late basketball coach Jimmy Valvano, has since awarded nearly $300 million in research grants. Those who have not seen the dying Valvano’s speech at the 1993 Espy Awards need to. Not since Lou Gehrig has a sports figure made such a stirring farewell.
If I thought, however, that not even ESPN could taint a cause as noble as the Jimmy V Foundation, I underestimated ESPN. During the games the announcers proudly discussed how money donated to the Jimmy V Foundation would be funneled to research designed “to close the gap in cancer disparities experienced by minority patients.“
Will KC’s new ‘Racial Equity Office’ tackle the Chiefs?
“The Kansas City, Missouri, City Council,” reads a much too proud press release, “has accepted a $129,511
grant awarded by Health Forward Foundation to support the establishment of an Office of Racial Equity and Reconciliation and to establish an Equity Task Force to help the city achieve racial equity.”
As defined and widely understood, “Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” By contrast, “Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities.”
“Equity,” of course, is part of the DEI package – diversity, equity and inclusion. What those three words means in concert is anyone’s guess. It may not be coincidence, however, that “DEI” is Latin for “gods.”
Rittenhouse trial calls new attention to ‘Trayvon Hoax’
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has called renewed attention to a parallel case, that of the Florida shooting in 2012 of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.
In 2019, L.A. filmmaker Joe Gilbert produced a stunningly researched documentary – and accompanying book – on the case titled, “The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided America.”
In my own 2013 book, “If I Had A Son,” I argued that the jury did the right thing in acquitting Zimmerman of all charges in July 2013, an acquittal that led to the creation of Black Lives Matter.
From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse: A Decade of Woke Misrule
Ten years ago this coming February, George Zimmermann shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on a rainy night in Sanford, Florida. Without intending, Zimmerman triggered a dark new phase in the history of progressive America.
Beginning with the Sacco and Vanzetti case in the 1920s, the left lied to conceal the guilt of the guilty. Yes, Virginia, those two bad boys were guilty. Upton Sinclair, who “proved” their innocence in his epic novel Boston, knew they were guilty. “My wife is absolutely certain that if I tell what I believe,” Sinclair confided to a friend, “I will be called a traitor to the movement and may not live to finish the book.”
Unlike Sinclair, most of the “useful idiots” on the left did not need to be threatened to stay in line. For the next century, their self-righteousness led them to weep for a pantheon of martyrs from the Rosenbergs to Leonard Peltier to Mumia Abu-Jamal to Kenosha’s own Jacob Blake, all of them purported victims of American injustice.
Kyle and Trayvon, 17 and unequal
“That child had every right to be where he was,” said the attorney. “That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him. … Did that child not have the right to defend 
himself from that strange man?”
Although 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse had every right to be where he was on that fateful night in Kenosha and had every right to defend himself from the strange man/men following him, he was not the “child” spoken of above.
No, the attorney in question was John Guy, a Florida state prosecutor, and the child he spoke of was 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
“Child” Trayvon was a half-foot taller than either Rittenhouse or the man he savagely attacked in February 2012, George Zimmerman. Had a desperate Zimmerman not shot and killed his attacker, Trayvon would surely have been arrested.
And yet the media and the state prosecutors consistently portrayed Martin, an aspiring MMA fighter, as a boy or a child.
Behind the New York Times’ Unholy War on Project Veritas
Five years ago, I stopped by the Project Veritas offices in New York’s Westchester County and had an extended conversation with its founder, James O’Keefe. The subject was fear and, for the heck of it, O’Keefe recorded the discussion. It is worth listening to.
In the five years since that conversation, as the interests of Big Media and the Deep State coalesced, the environment for an independent journalist like O’Keefe has become much more ominous. At one point in our 2016 conversation O’Keefe recalled his attorney’s warning about the best way to avoid legal trouble — “Don’t leave your apartment.” On Saturday, November 6, James didn’t have to.
“I woke up to a pre-dawn raid,” O’Keefe told Sean Hannity on Monday. “Banging on my door, I went to my door to answer the door and there were ten FBI agents with a battering ram, white blinding lights, they turned me around, handcuffed me and threw me against the hallway.”
The agents then proceeded to carry out a court-ordered search in connection with a diary reportedly stolen from President Biden’s 40-year-old daughter, Ashley. Among the items seized in the raid was O’Keefe’s phone. “On my phone, “O’Keefe told Hannity, “were many of my reporters’ notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to this story and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization.”
What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?
In researching my 2020 book, Unmasking Obama, I focused on one question above all others: What did
Barack Obama know about the plot to link Donald Trump to Russia and when he did he know it? Unlike the Watergate era, when all the insiders in government and media rushed to discover what Nixon knew, only the outsiders have dared to ask about Obama.
Major credit here goes to Rep. Devin Nunes and his chief investigator Kash Patel, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, and most recently Special Counsel John Durham. For all their good efforts, however, this probe remains very much a work in progress.
That caution established, the answer to the question in the headline is becoming increasingly clear. The information contained in Durham’s recent indictment of Russian national Igor Danchenko, when coupled with the CIA notes declassified in October 2020 by Ratcliffe, leads directly to the White House. In the past week, these revelations have gotten a fair share of attention, at least on the right side of the blogosphere. They deserve it.
Wow! Producers of Clinton ‘Impeachment’ series nailed it
Hillary and Bill finally get a comeuppance.
As I watched the closing rounds in the 10-episode FX series, “Impeachment: American Crime Story,” I kept waiting for producers Ryan Murphy and colleagues to pull their punches and let Bill Clinton up off the mat, but they did not. In fact, they closed “Impeachment” Tuesday with the kind of knockout punch that would have fully derailed Clinton’s post-presidential career had this series been produced 20 years ago.
Although Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky quickly became household names in 1998 when this saga unfolded, Juanita Broaddrick, “Jane Doe No. 5,” did not. She remained quietly in the shadows and hoped to remain there. Independent Counsel Ken Starr had no interest in unearthing her story. In that it did not advance his perjury and obstruction cases against the president, he relegated Broaddrick to a footnote.
His subordinates, however, understood the power that story would have in persuading moderate Republicans to vote for impeachment. They were right. The Jane Doe No. 5 account was strong enough to get Clinton impeached by the House in December 1998.
My Ringside Seat on a Crooked New Jersey Election
Watching the shenanigans in the still contested New Jersey gubernatorial election, I have to wonder
My Democratic great great grandfather may well have voted.
whether there has ever been a truly honest election in state history. From my own experience, I would say probably not and, as I also learned, there are a thousand ways to cheat.
In 1982, through an odd sequence of events, I found myself with a ringside seat on a routinely crooked Newark mayoral election. I had been offered a job as “associate director” of the 1,000-employee Newark Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This being a recession year, and I needing to finish my Ph.D. dissertation, I took it. This was not a career move.
I had two qualifications that endeared me to the Philippine-born woman who ran the show: I lived in Newark public housing growing up, and I aced her borderline illegal IQ test. An elitist whose role model was the then little-known Imelda Marcos, my “Imelda” took me under her wing.
