Month: June 2022

I get it! I get the basic argument of the left that gun control is the way to stop mass shootings. I think that for the most part, this argument is misguided, but I get it. (For the most part it’s an emotional response … “we cannot just do nothing; … we must do something!”) Unfortunately for this argument by the left, these mass shootings are not perpetrated by law abiding gun owners. As best I know, none of these horrific mass shootings have been carried out by a member of the NRA. Granted I do not own a gun, much less an AR-15, and I consider myself to be far from knowledgeable when it comes to guns. While I am not convinced that outlawing AR-15s will solve this mass shooting problem, nonetheless I do not understand why  an AR-15 is needed by a young person, especially a young male who has not turned twenty-one.

Today I read an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola which addressed some other possible reasons for mass shootings.

The following is a summary of Dr. Mercola’a take on this matter:

• While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
• Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
• 97.8% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
• Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
• Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence

Dr. Mercola focuses on antidepressant-drug’s effect on society:

SSRIs can also cause emotional blunting and detachment, such that patients report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything or anyone, as well as psychosis and hallucinations. All of these side effects can contribute to someone acting out an unthinkable violent crime.

In one review of 484 drugs in the FDA’s database, 31 were found to account for 78.8% of all cases of violence against others, and 11 of those drugs were antidepressants.

The researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the drugs analyzed, SSRI antidepressants and the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), had the strongest associations. The top-five most dangerous SSRIs were:13

• Fluoxetine (Prozac), which increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
• Paroxetine (Paxil), which increased violent behavior 10.3 times
• Fluvoxamine (Luvox), which increased violent behavior 8.4 times
• Venlafaxine (Effexor), which increased violent behavior 8.3 times
• Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), which increased violent behavior 7.9 times

While Dr. Mercola points out that it is difficult to attribute all/most mass shootings to depression and the drugs used to treat depressive symptoms, it certainly is worth looking into, and I agree.

6/30/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

I just read a story about a retired couple in San Marcos, Texas, and it certainly reminded me of the Gestapo. It wasn’t the couple, Lora DeWolfe and Darrel Kennemer, that acted like the Gestapo, but rather it was the FBI. As you read the following, keep in mind that it could be you the next time. It could be you that are in a similar situation … right here in the U.S.A.!

From the Epoch Times:

Their ordeal began when their gate alarm woke them up in the pre-dawn hours of June 22, DeWolfe said. At first, they thought a deer had tripped the alarm, but DeWolfe got up and saw a white car. Kennemer got his AR-15 rifle and went outside, not knowing what to expect, she said.

“I’m seeing one single white vehicle moving pretty fast, and I was thinking someone’s going to die,” Kennemer said.

FBI officers got out of the white vehicle and told Kennemer, who had his rifle up in the air, to drop his weapon. He kept his rifle and asked the FBI to show him a warrant. Kennemer said someone threw a flash-bang at him repeatedly because he wouldn’t drop his weapon at first.

(FYI: A stun grenade, also known as a flash grenade, flashbang, thunderflash or sound bomb, is a device used to temporarily disorient an enemy’s senses. It is designed to produce a blinding flash of light of around 7 megacandela (Mcd) and an intensely loud “bang” of greater than 170 decibels (dB).[2] It was first used by the British Army’s Special Air Service in the late 1970s.)

DeWolfe said he put the gun down when she came out of the house. She noticed red laser sights trained on both of them.

“There was a drone flying around and an aircraft,” she said. “They never showed a warrant until the end.”

DeWolfe then tried calling a neighbor before the FBI told them to drop their phones, which ended up recording the first few minutes of the raid.

Agents entered the house and threw a flash-bang that frightened their dogs, causing one to run away, DeWolfe said.

Agents split them up and began questioning them. They showed Kennemer a blurry photo of a man at the Capitol with facial hair similar to his, according to Kennemer. They asked him about breaking a window, which he denied as well.

Both said they went no further than the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 and did not harm anyone or damage anything. They said the allegation of assault was false, and the FBI kept showing Kennemer a blurry photo of a man who looked similar but wasn’t Kennemer.

Later that day, DeWolf was able to call her daughter, Ricci Bratton, to tell her what happened. Bratton, who served in the U.S. Airforce, said her mom called her around 1 p.m

“You want to talk about surreal—my first instinct was you’re kidding. There’s no way,” Bratton told The Epoch Times.

Bratton said she thought her mother was in shock but was trying to remain calm.

“It wasn’t a knock at the door. That’s for sure,” Bratton said. “I can’t believe this is happening. You don’t believe it’s happening to your family.”

You don’t believe that it could happen in your own country! … but it is!

6/28/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

Two unusual and scary headlines on the same day. Both of these men were young, and both were high echelon professional athletes.

“Ravens outside linebacker Jaylon Ferguson died after authorities found him unresponsive late Tuesday in a North Baltimore home. He was 26.”

“Former Purdue standout Caleb Swanigan, who played three seasons in the NBA, died Monday night at age 25.”

Quite understandably whenever a young person dies unexpectedly, there is always an underlying suspicion that drugs, especially fentanyl, may somehow be involved.

(Among people under 30, fentanyl-involved deaths started climbing statewide in 2016. By 2019, it had surpassed other opioid categories of deaths among that age group, at the rate of 4 per 100,000. By 2020, fentanyl-involved deaths had doubled to 8 per 100,000 among people under 30.)

Since both of these headlines are hot off the press, info that drugs contributed to either of these deaths is not yet available. However, let’s assume for a second that drugs were not involved, could anything else be involved in this stunning coincidence of sudden death in two young people.

From Epoch Health:

“Media outlets around the world have started highlighting a medical phenomenon called ‘sudden adult death syndrome’(SADS) – young people dying with no sign of illness or underlying health condition. They simply collapse during the day or don’t wake up in the morning. While SADS has been known to occur before, what’s alarming is the sudden surge of this previously rare event.”

“Data compiled by the International Olympic Committee show 1,101 sudden deaths in athletes under age 35 between 1966 and 2004, giving us an average annual rate of 29, across all sports. Meanwhile, between March 2021 and March 2022 alone—a single year—at least 769 athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, collapse, and/or have died on the field, worldwide”

Still from Epoch Health:

“Among EU FIFA elite soccer athletes, sudden death increased by 420 percent in 2021. Historically, about five soccer players have died while playing the game each year. Between January and mid-November 2021, 21 FIFA players died from sudden death.”

“Among athletes, sudden death incidence has historically ranged between 1 in 40,000 and 1 in 80,000. An analysis of deaths among competitive athletes between 1980 and 2006 in the U.S. identified a total of 1,866 cases where an athlete either collapsed from cardiac arrest and/or died suddenly. That’s 1,866 cases occurring over a span of 27 years, giving us an annual average of 69 in the U.S.

Data compiled by the International Olympic Committee show 1,101 sudden deaths in athletes under age 35 between 1966 and 2004, giving us an average annual rate of 29 sudden deaths, across all sports. Meanwhile, between March 2021 and March 2022 alone — a single year — at least 769 athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, collapse, and/or have died on the field, worldwide.”

It certainly appears that “sudden death” in young people, including young athletes, has recently increased significantly. Some might ask, “Is there anything else that is significantly more than it was 2-3 years ago?”

Could Covid or the vaccine be involved?

An opinion piece in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, published in April 2022, highlights the correlation between COVID vaccine-induced heart inflammation and sudden cardiac death in athletes:

“Increased COVID-related SCD [sudden cardiac death] appears to be due, at least in part, to a recent history of infection and/or vaccination that induces inflammatory and immune impairment that injures the heart.”

Hmmm! Food for thought.

6/27/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

As per my usual Sunday pattern, today I am highlighting Rob Kinney, as someone to be admired and respected for turning lemons into lemonade.

From the Epoch Times, Inspired:

“Born in Louisiana, Kenney was the seventh of eight children. His family followed his father’s work, moving from Kansas to Louisiana, and eventually to Seattle, Washington. Life was good for the family during Kenney’s childhood years. However, after moving to Washington, Kenney watched his family disintegrate.

His mother, who originally hailed from a big family, coped with feelings of loneliness and anxiety by turning to alcohol to sedate herself, and as a result, she became unable to care for her children. Meanwhile, Kenney’s father gained custody of the kids, and then he, too, began to fade into the background. With the older siblings grown and moved out of the house, Kenney’s father would habitually provide groceries for the younger kids during the week and then just disappear.

Finally, when Kenney was 14, his father came home with the news that he was “done raising kids.” Kenney remembered hearing his father say that the younger kids would either go to foster care or live with their older siblings. That year, Kenney moved in with his newly married 23-year-old brother and his wife, Rick and Karen.

“I was bitter for a long time,” Kenney recalled. Due to his past, he harbored bitterness and frustration toward his parents, which “wasn’t healthy,” for a long time.

During the Covid-19 pandemic and the isolation that ensued, Kenney saw a real need for people to connect with one another, and he luckily had a library of “Dad wisdom” stored up, along with his daughter’s persuasion to start a YouTube channel for “advice.”

“My daughter kept bothering me to do it,” he recollected. “I ran out of excuses, and so, I finally had my first upload on April 2 of 2020.”

His production, which is low on bells and whistles, is a compilation of simple recordings made on his phone camera. No makeup, and no fancy equipment, but just like a simple conversation with Dad.

“I’m just trying to be myself and trying to communicate like I would be talking to my own kids,” he said.

Originally, he thought his YouTube channel would help “maybe 30 or 40 people,” but he and his family watched in surprise as the number of subscribers climbed, from 300 to 1,000, and now it’s up to 4 million people.

Kenney’s challenges have helped him to have empathy for the pain of others who have been wronged. He reads comments on his channel about the “tough stuff” people have been through, and he said that his heart breaks for what people endure, and yet, he knows that living in the past is futile.

“You kind of waste your life, right? Years go by and you’re missing out on opportunities because something happened to you in the past,” he said. “Bringing the past into the future—it’s not beneficial.”

Thus Kenney hopes to help others forgive, move forward, and take ownership of their own lives, rather than dwell on the things in the rearview mirror.”

Kudos to Rob Kenney. A real life example of turning lemons into lemonade.

6/26/22

Joe Biden has just announced a proposal to eliminate the Federal gasoline tax (18.4 cents per gallon) for three months. If Congress goes along with this proposal, the elimination of the Federal gas tax would probably go into effect in the next month or so. If that’s the case, this tax holiday would end just before the November mid-term elections, and a chance for losers running for office to vote to extend it. This sort of timing obviously could either be a benefit or be a curse to the Democrats running in November. Granted the timing would not effect the votes cast by dead Americans or by those with Alzheimer’s in nursing homes, but it could play a role in the voting of the millions of Americans who have to drive to work every day.

Rather than typically being a downer on everything that our numb-nuts President says or does, I have figured out a good thing about this temporary reprieve of the Federal gas tax. … It could be a way to help everyday Americans save toward the purchase of an electronic vehicle (E.V.). With some basic calculations perhaps you might realize that J.B. is not so dumb after all!

Follow me here:

Let’s say that the average American, who drives back and forth to work every day, gets 25 miles/gal. If he puts in 10 gallons per week that means that in an average week he will be saving $1.84 (10 X $0.184 = $1.84). Therefore after 3 months (13 weeks) he will have saved a total of $23.92. [Unfortunately, if that individual American either lives closer to work or gets more than 25 ml/gal, he will not save as much over these 3 months.] 

If that frugal individual were to save that $23.92 and put it totally toward the future purchase of an electric vehicle (E.V.), eventually, with interest, he could possibly use this saved money to buy an E.V.  … perhaps for his great, great, great grandchild. So, there you see, Joe Biden is not so dumb after all!

If this gas tax holiday were to continue until the end of Biden’s four year term that individual could have saved a total of $239.2. (~130 weeks x $1.84/wk. = $239.2). With the addition of earned interest, that individual possibly could potentially purchase an E.V. before our present Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, is in his grave in South Bend, Indiana … err, that is if he lives to >150! Admittedly the math becomes too complicated, but the point is that J.B. is not really so dumb after all!

6/25/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

We are all aware that knowingly saying something that is false is a lie, and the person who does this can rightfully be called mendacious.

However, is knowingly withholding true information, without any actual vocalization, the equivalent of lying? Can the person who knowingly withholds the truth also be called mendacious? If one knows that his/her pie-in-the-sky idea is not practically feasible, but remains mum about that impracticality, can that person also be called mendacious?

The above verbiage is my lead-in to the practicality of windmills, and thus to the mendacity of wind-power proponents. Forget the fact that the wind doesn’t blow all the time. Likewise forget the fact that the energy generated by the spinning of wind turbines is not storable. Leaving aside these two reasons why wind power cannot ever be a commonsensical solution to our everyday energy needs, the following information should be the coup de grâce to the long term use of windmills.

Most of the following is from an article by Marvin L. Covalt on Rip’s Newsletter of 6/12/22:

Building one wind turbine requires 45 tons of plastic (processed from petroleum), 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 2 tons of rare-earth elements. To produce the 900 tons of steel needed for one turbine requires about 150 tons of coking coal and about 300 tons of iron ore.  

Cement is the number one carbon contributor in the world.  The production of one pound of cement also produces one pound of CO2.

More bad news, those 45 tons of plastic are nonrecyclable.

What about cost?

The cost to build one is about $3 million. Add to that a yearly maintenance cost of $45,000, and then recognize that the life-cycle of a wind turbine is about 20 years. Even without taking into account the enormous problem of the disposal of those worn out wind turbines after 20 years, one quickly realizes that the widespread use of wind power is not only not workable, but flirting with the impossible.

Before reading Covalt’s informative article, I was not aware of these many facts concerning wind power turbines. Could it be that those who are pushing wind power as part of a “green” solution to our energy needs either are not aware of these facts (doubtful), or know all of these facts, but knowingly withhold them … and thus “the mendacity of windmills?”

6/24/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

For many in the medical field the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is one of the premier medical journals. Studies that are published in the NEJM are to be respected and believed. With that in mind, a very enlightening and revealing study was just published on 6/15/22. In general, this study has to do with the protection from Covid provided by vaccines versus the protection provided by natural immunity due to a prior Covid infection.

The following in quotes is from Epoch News, 6/21/22:

“The study examined the Omicron wave in Qatar that occurred from around December 2021 to February 2022, comparing vaccination rates and immunity among more than 100,000 Omicron infected and non-infected individuals.”

[100,000 individuals is a very impressive number for any study, and, of course, the more patients involved, the more believable the results.]

“The authors of the study found that those who had a prior infection but no vaccination had a 46.1 and 50 percent immunity against the two subvariants of the Omicron variant, even at an interval of more than 300 days since the previous infection.”

[ From this study I think that it is reasonable to conclude that natural immunity from a prior Covid infection is far from perfect (~50%), but it appears to be very long lasting. What about the immunity that is provided by vaccines?]

“Individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine but had no previous infection, were found with negative immunity against both BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants, indicating an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than an average person.

Over six months after getting two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4 percent.

But for two doses of the Moderna vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3 percent after more than six months since the last injection.

[So while natural immunity from a prior Covid infection is not perfect, the immunity provided by Pfizer or Moderna vaccines is far, far from perfect at six months … in fact, at six months, prior vaccines make one more susceptible to Covid compared to the average person. To say the least that is very disappointing. What about boosters?]

“Though the authors reported that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine increased immunity to over 50 percent, this was measured just over 40 days after the third vaccination, which is a very short interval. These figures indicate a risk of waning immunity for the third vaccine dose as time progresses.”

[It appears that protection from both vaccines(definitely) and boosters(probably) wane appreciably such that at six months both vaccinated and boosted individuals are more susceptible to Covid infection than the average person. If these results concerning boosters holds up, one might ask why get a booster, and furthermore, why in God’s name get a second booster?]

“The findings are supported by another recent study from Israel that also found natural immunity waned significantly more slowly compared to artificial, or vaccinated, immunity.

The study found that both natural and artificial immunity waned over time.

Individuals that were previously infected but not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.”

Both of these studies (Israel and Qater) raise an additional question concerning the vaccination of children. WHY vaccinate children? In children Covid is a very mild infection, and according to the results from these studies, the immunity provided by vaccines is only temporary. Will those who are now advocating that children get Covid vaccines, be then advocating boosters, ad infinitum, every six months?

Hmmm!

6/23/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

Let’s be clear, this piece is not about abortion. Whereas I am not “pro-choice,” when it comes to abortion, I am definitely pro-choice when it comes to schools and the education of kids. I have been that way for quite a while because in my opinion, the success/failure of how well we educate our nation’s children will eventually determine the success/failure of our nation. Furthermore, at this juncture we, as a nation, are failing. Look at just about any of the overall evaluations of how 4th graders, 6th graders, and 8th graders are doing in math, reading, or English. … Truly sad … and it doesn’t get any better in high school. 

What to do about these present abysmal results?  One reasonable option is “school choice,” meaning finding a way to help parents choose which schools they can send their children to. Interestingly, there are recent developments that are encouraging on this topic. 

From the Washington Examiner:

“Republican lawmakers introduced twin bills in Congress on 6/16/22 that would establish a federal school choice program by enacting a $10 billion tax credit program to fund education scholarships.

“Our children’s education is the key to America’s future success,” lead sponsor Jackie Walorski (R,IN) said in a statement exclusively provided to the Washington Examiner. “Every child should have the opportunity to live the American Dream — regardless of their ZIP code or socioeconomic background. Offering families school options will help millions of children access the best possible education for them. As we look to our nation’s future, this investment will restore power to parents and equip every American child to thrive.”

School choice initiatives at both the state and federal levels have consistently drawn strong opposition from teacher unions who say such initiatives are schemes to defund public school programs. The proposed legislation would, however, ensure that the scholarships are available to students, even if they attend a public school. The legislation isn’t expected to pass in the Democratic-controlled Congress, but the plan should serve as the blueprint for GOP school choice initiatives should Republicans retake Congress next year.”

Speaking of elections and the topic of school choice, the following is also from a different article in the Washington Examiner:

“Republican state lawmakers in several states who opposed school choice initiatives and subsequently garnered the support of teacher’s unions are consistently losing their primary elections.

In Iowa, Kentucky, and Texas, a slew of Republican state lawmakers who bucked their party’s long-standing support of school choice and in some cases received endorsements and donations from teachers unions all lost their respective primaries in recent weeks.

‘School choice is emerging as a litmus-test issue for Republican primary voters,’ Corey DeAngelis, the director of research at the school choice advocacy group American Federation for Children, told the Washington Examiner. ‘At this point, any Republican opposing school choice and parental rights in education is essentially begging to end their political careers.’”

82% of Republicans support school choice nationwide, and those RINO’s that don’t … vote them out!

6/22/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

The National Health Service in England launched a campaign last week to recruit a million more blood donors over the next five years due to falling numbers during the pandemic, the outlet said, adding that the SNBTS (Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service) began a drive earlier in June to find 16,000 new donors in the coming year.

The following is from BlazeMedia and the Daily Mail:

Leslie Sinclair, who has donated 125 pints of blood in his life dutifully went into donate, but was rejected when he refused to answer a new nonsensical “woke” question on the screening form. He was told he had to answer a part of the form that asks if he’s expecting a child or has been pregnant in the past six months.

After he argued that as a man — and as a person age 66 years — the question doesn’t apply to him and that he shouldn’t have to answer it, Sinclair said clinic staffers replied that they couldn’t accept his blood, if he did not answer that foolish question!

With that, Sinclair walked away over the “nonsensical” policy question.

“I am angry because I have been giving blood since I was 18 and have regularly gone along,” the father of two from Stirling in central Scotland told the outlet.

Sinclair added:

“There is always a form to fill in and that’s fine — they tend to ask about medical conditions or diseases — and clearly that’s because the blood needs to be safe. This time around, there was a question I hadn’t seen before: ‘Are you pregnant, or have you been in the last six months?’ which required a yes or no answer. I pointed out to the staff that it was impossible for me to be in that position, but I was told that I would need to answer, otherwise I couldn’t give blood. I told them that was stupid, and that if I had to leave, I wouldn’t be back, and that was it. I got on my bike and cycled away. It is nonsensical, and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help. But they’ve been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can’t possibly be answered.”

Professor Marc Turner, director of SNBTS, last week told the Daily Mail about the new policy.

“We appreciate the support of each and every one of our donor community and thank Mr. Sinclair for his commitment over a long number of years,” Turner told the outlet. “Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff. As a public body we take cognizance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness — therefore all donors are now asked the same questions.”

OMG! 

Well in my opinion, Professor Marc Turner, director of the SNBTS, is clearly an idiot! 

If there are more people like Leslie Sinclair in Scotland, blood donations will continue to fall short of expectations. Rather than waiting, the “woke” professor should be fired now. He has pushed “woke-ness” to an irrational ludicrous extreme, as he appears to be an example Peter’s Principle in real life!

6/21/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

In order to be a good commander that individual must have the respect of the men under him. If he doesn’t have that respect then when push comes to shove, who knows what might happen. To me the same logic applies to the head coach of the NFL’s Washington Commanders. As some of you may recall the “Commanders” is the new woke name for the team that had been known as the Washington Redskins for about a gazillion years.

Recently the Defensive Coordinator of the Commanders, Jack Del Rio, made a major faux pas … he vocalized something that he felt! In other words he expressed his opinion. In years past this now audacious act was called “free speech.” The head coach of the Commanders, Ron Rivera, disagreed with what Del Rio said, and fined him … are you ready for this? … fined him $100,000! 

What sort of foolhardy thing did Del Rio say?  He called the January 6 riot a dust-up compared to the 2020 riots that burned down half the country. Wow! What an egregious thing to say! Didn’t Del Rio understand that these days it is very dangerous to express an opinion … especially an opinion that could possibly offend someone. These days various things are being countermanded because they have offended a single individual, and what Del Rio said must have offended at least two people. Shameful! 

Personally, I thought that this whole megillah was shameful … shameful that someone could be fined for expressing his opinion. Shameful that Ron Rivera and the team thought that it was necessary to poke their noses in where it didn’t belong. Since I was a kid, I always thought that free speech implied that any American could say what he/she believed, but that was before the woke commanders of the Commanders.

Interestingly Bill Maher agreed with me. (I used to always disagree with Bill Maher, but now occasionally he says something that makes sense.)

From Townhall:

“On Friday’s episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the host defended Washington Commanders (formerly the Washington Redskins) defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio’s right to his ‘s—ty take’ about the January 6 Capitol riot.

Maher started the topic, explaining what Del Rio said, and mentioned that although he doesn’t agree with it, ‘this is a very common view that he has.’

[…]

‘They fined him, the team fined him, $100,000 for this opinion. Fining people for an opinion. I am not down with that,’ Maher declared.

[…]

‘To have a s—ty take is not a crime.’”

Bravo Bill Maher. I usually disagree with him. However, he, like Jack Del Rio, does have a right to have some s—-ty opinions. All Americans should have the right to voice their own opinions.

Bravo Jack Del Rio for not being afraid to speak his mind.

Bravo free speech … hope you come back soon!

6/20/22

www.californiacontrarian.com