Month: October 2022

This piece was published by me  on June 10, 2020. I thought that now it is  interesting because of what is occurring with the questions concerning the esteemed Dr. Fauci

10/23/22

This is an Election Year

This blog will be a keeper. One that you will want to look at a year or two from now, so bookmark it for easy reference. (Be advised that this is written with 20/20 hindsight!)

Dear President Trump:

This may be the first time that I will lead with a criticism of you. Here I am referring to your handling of the Wuhan virus epidemic in the U.S.A. I will need to preface this by saying that if this were not an election year (2020), and the Democrats were not crazy anti-Trump, perhaps rational thinking and cooperation might have prevailed. Nonetheless, as Harry Truman once said, ”The buck stops here!” . . . with you.

Your initial mistake was to apparently place all of your trust in the tea leaves of Dr. Fauci, who I am sure is a nice old guy, but who has been way off on a lot of his forecasts. From the very beginning this should have required critical input from both esteemed physicians as well as esteemed economists. Now I am sure that you did seek advice from economists, but to the best of my knowledge, you did not emphasize the economic importance of what was going to occur. . . . Big mistake, as once you put on the Fauci galoshes, there was no way to get gracefully out of them without stepping in puddles. From the beginning, I think that you put too much reliance on the medical side of the coin – the coin on which no one could predict the outcome. Was this coronavirus different from past viral illnesses. No one knew! Dr. Fauci obviously did not know!

At some point should you, President Trump, have stepped up and given Fauci the boot? I say, “Yes,” but I remember that this is an election year.

From then on the blame was spread out to many, as in governors, who have relied on the ouija boards of numerous directors of “public health” in their respective states. These various M.P.H.s either apparently did not understand or just plain ignored not only the economic consequences of their decisions, but also the social consequences of their isolation lockdown diktats (suicides, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc.)! 

Speaking of children . . . can anybody tell me why they are not back to school? Children are back to school in Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, etc, but not in the U.S. !

Should you have searched for and found someone with some clout, who would say, “the kids need to back to school?” “Yes, but I remember that this is an election year!

When the virus comes back for its encore this winter, there will be no vaccine and no semblance of any herd immunity, as it is almost impossible to get from lockdown into the herd! Hopefully Dr. Fauci will be just a distant memory, and the nation can allow the virus to run its course. No more “flattening the curve,” and most importantly, the November, 2020 election will be over, and You, Sir, can start to think for yourself.

Sincerely,

The California Contrarian

P.S. ( to President Trump):

Don’t screw it up! You should have the 2020 election in the bag, especially after this complete chaos with the riots that the various Democratic mayors and governors seemingly cannot control. Do not intervene until they come crawling, otherwise the Dems will find a way to vilify anything that you do. I would never advise you to stop tweeting, but I would suggest that you keep them toned down. At this time is no reason to further inflame the situation. Let them hang themselves.

Remember . . . this is an election year!

6/10/20

Most of us are familiar with the Fifth Amendment, but how many of us are familiar with Fourth Amendment? Back in the day the Founding Fathers were very concerned with government intrusion. Under the rule of the British king in colonial America breaking into the homes of political opponents and depriving them of their possessions was a common practice.

From Legal Information Institute:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment is very pertinent in light of the recent DOJ’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Everyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that this was a political stunt with the warrant signed by an anti-Trump judge. This raid appears to be just part of the politicalization of the DOJ and was addressed by Harmeet  Dhillon in a piece on Imprimus:

“For over 180 years after the Founding, the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment protection to places and things, and this meant that dwellings were given a heightened sense of protection against government intrusion. The Supreme Court has reiterated that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

Hmmm! 

The other part of the Fourth Amendment has to do with the specificity of the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The FBI apparently searched everywhere including bringing along a professional safe cracker  to break into Trump’s new private safe  … it was empty! Furthermore the agents went through Melania Trump’s underwear drawers! Hmmm! Recall that the Fourth Amendment specifies places to be searched.

I think that it can be safely stated that the Mår-a-Lago raid did not comply with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the issue is now whether or not Biden’s DOJ still thinks the Fourth Amendment needs to be adhered to! 

10/22/22

They’re doing it again. Perhaps better said … they are trying to do it again. Over and over and over again Democratic politicians, especially in California, do things which inevitably harm the little guy. The high gas tax in California is a prime example. Who is primarily effected by this high tax? Obviously, it is those that need to drive longer distances to get to work every day … those who by necessity are forced to live far from their place of employment because they cannot afford to live near to where they work. In other words it effects those at the lower rungs on the economic ladder the most. Does the high California gas tax effect those who drive electric cars?  … No, and which economic group can afford an EV? Nuff said.

The latest example of this is a case argued before the Supreme Court on 10/11/22. The case is National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross, court file 21-468. Respondent Karen Ross is secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The NPPC, the petitioner, describes itself as an agricultural organization representing the interests of the $26 billion-per-year U.S. pork industry.

The case has to do with the legality of California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, which was approved by state voters in 2018. Basically what Prop 12 says is that in order to sell pork in California, the pork producer must abide by the standards that were established in 2008 by California voters, namely Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. Prop2 outlawed “gestation crates” for pregnant pigs, cages for egg-laying hens, and veal crates for calves. However, the measure didn’t forbid the sale of food that comes from animals confined in prohibited ways, and this led to the passage of Prop 12 in 2018.

Since California imports 99.9 percent of its pork, the nuts and bolts of this case involves the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, to me it involves a Common Sense Clause. If pork producers throughout the U.S. in order to sell pork in California, are forced to abide by the egregious standards set by Prop 2, then the price of pork in California will by necessity go up. Furthermore it will probably go up quite a bit. The same things will hold true for eggs. Which economic class in California will then no longer be able to afford pork? Those that drive EVs will still be able to afford and eat pork, as well as those who can work from home. 

If the SCOTUS sides with  Karen Ross of the State of California, those same individuals who are suffering the most because of California’s gas tax, will be eating fewer eggs and will no longer eating any pork.

I know, I know, Prop2 and Prop 12 were passed by the California voters, most of whom will reflexively shed a tear when shown a sad pig or hen. In some ways I guess I feel a bit sorry for the crowded pigs and hens, but I   will feel a lot sorrier for those who can no longer afford to eat pork or eggs. If the elites wish to eat only pork and eggs produced under stringent and more expensive conditions, so be it. However, do not mandate your “morally superior standards” on the hoi-polloi. 

10/21/22

The next Covid booster is available, and I am going to assume that further boosters will be available in the future. The question for some individuals now, and in the future will be: “should I get the booster?” or “should my kids get the booster?” For some the question is not at all problematic … “of course I will be getting this booster, and the next, and the next!” Likewise for others the question does not really involve any actual decision making … “since I never got any of the initial Covid shots, no way would I ever consider a Covid booster.” The individuals in these two aforementioned groups have already bought the farm one way or the other, and there is really no decision to be made.

However, there are some other different groups in which there is an actual decision to be made:

First: If you have already had Covid, should you get a booster? 

(For me the decision here is simple … I have already had Covid, and for me this decision is easy … ‘No,’ I will not be getting the booster.)

Second: A separate group is made up of those who have had the initial series of the two vaccines, and even perhaps a single booster.

If the vaccine booster had no possible adverse effects, then I suppose the answer would be … “sure, why not.” However, that is not the case as there are potential significant adverse effects, and here I am not talking about having a sore arm. Granted the odds of having a serious side-effect are small, however, some of the more severe side-effects can be life changing, and there is no ‘do over!’

I just read a long detailed article from Epoch Health entitled:

“Spike Protein From Infection and Vaccines Contributing to Autoimmune Diseases, Studies Suggest”

The key points in this long and complicated article are as follows:

Since the rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA and DNA injections, reports of many autoimmune conditions have either suddenly appeared, or relapsed, often with worsened symptoms.

Autoimmunity is a health condition where the body’s immune system becomes confused and unable to differentiate between self and non-self and attacks its own tissues.

In the case of COVID-19 and its vaccines, many studies since the start of the pandemic have shown that the spike protein shares similarities with human proteins both in its structure and in its basic chemical sequence.

This means the spike protein can increase the risk of developing autoimmunity and implies that the mRNA and DNA vaccines, which cause the body to make large amounts of spike protein, would do the same.

A recent study found the spike protein shares similarities with 34 different human proteins in amino acid sequences in sets of sixes. These include proteins found in the thyroid, brain, nose, ear, skin, muscles, heart, blood, nerves, joints, intestines, and many more.

So to me the initial question becomes, “At this point in time, is there any reason to add more spike proteins to anyone’s body?” 

To my way of thinking, the answer in general,  is an unequivocal …. “No!”

10/20/22

Let me first remind everyone of a 1962 song by the Crystals called “He’s a Rebel.” For those of you who do not remember the lyrics to this song … or perhaps, more likely were not yet born in 1962, this is how it starts:

“See the way he walks down the street

Watch the way he shuffles his feet

My, he holds his head up high

When he goes walking by, he’s my guy”

Immediately I thought of this song when I read an interview of Dr. Pierre Kory. Dr. Kory was truly a rebel during Covid. As the song says: “he holds his head up high; he’s my kind of guy!”

At this point you might ask, “why is Pierre Kory my kind of guy?” In general he is my kind of guy because of his feelings on the use of Ivermectin in Covid. 

The following is from the Epoch Times:

In his book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic,” Dr. Pierre Kory details the history of ivermectin and the how and why behind Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19.

In this interview he details the results of a huge Ivermectin study from Brazil.

“While there are many individual success stories out there, one that Kory believes best illustrates the power of ivermectin against COVID is that of Itajai, Brazil, a city of 220,000 people. In June 2020, they implemented a prophylaxis program using ivermectin. The program was advertised throughout local media, and people were encouraged to participate and take ivermectin four times a month, on days 1, 2, 15 and 16.

On the appropriate days, they set up tents and centers where people could get the drug, and the entire program was carefully logged in an electronic database. In all, 159,000 Brazilians participated, of those 113,000 elected to take the ivermectin. Kory and eight coauthors published a paper on the results in March 2022:

The 113,000 [who took the ivermectin] were older, sicker, fatter. Way more cardiovascular disease and diabetes. And, obviously, they were probably more worried about the impacts on their health.

So, when you look at that comparison, I mean, there are massive negative confounders. But despite those confounders, even when you didn’t propensity match, there were insanely positive benefits in the ivermectin group.

They died much less, I think it was 70% lower risk of dying, 68% lower risk of hospitalization and 50% lower risk of getting COVID. And that was in the sickest of the sick in that city. Then, when we did propensity matching, matching them for age and other things, it was even greater.

Just another Ivermectin success story that has been hidden from the public. … 113,000 patients! Who has been instrumental in keeping these Ivermectin success stories hidden? To Dr. Kory the answer is obvious … the pharmaceutical industry. Why? … Money!

Since the Covid story is just about over, Dr. Kory is now working on Ivermectin to treat “long Covid,” and vaccine injuries.

For long-haulers and the COVID jab injured, Kory typically starts patients out at 0.3 mg per kilo of bodyweight once a day. For most, that dose works well. It’s still unclear how long people need to stay on this daily dose. Oftentimes, when they try to cut back, symptoms return, which suggests they still have spike protein in their bodies. Fortunately, the safety profile of ivermectin, even for long-term use, is very good.

Without belaboring a dead horse … I know, I know a very poor mixed metaphor … can anybody explain to me why the use of Ivermectin, a drug with an excellent safety profile, was condemned by the medical community during Covid?

And furthermore, will the use of Ivermectin be discouraged to treat long haulers? Most likely, Ivermectin will be again castigated and condemned as soon as the pharmaceutical industry comes up with a new expensive drug to treat long Covid and vaccine induced injuries.

10/19/22

A few days ago I devoted an entire piece to the disaster(s) that Fentanyl is causing in the U.S. After it was published, someone asked about whether or not there was a plan to combat this nationwide problem. As best I can tell, the answer is a resounding “No!”

Any plan would have to involve a series of stepwise small steps as this problem is not going to vanish on its own.

First off, obviously, in order to fight an enemy, that enemy has to be recognized. Hard as it is to believe, I have not heard one iota from our President that actually states that there is a fentanyl problem. If he is not aware that outside of the White House and the Delaware Beach there is a fentanyl problem, then perhaps someone can clue him in.

In California on 10/12/22, California Attorney General Rob Bonta released information on the fentanyl situation in the state and what the California Department of Justice is doing to fix the problem. While Rob Bonita did not mention the elephant in the room, he did acknowledge publicly that there is a fentanyl problem in California. 

The elephant in the room?? This leads me to the next step in combatting this fentanyl epidemic. Locally, here in California, as well as nationally someone has to come out and say the obvious … “it’s the border, stupid; the fentanyl problem is a direct byproduct of our open border policy.” 

Surprisingly, Bonita’s press release did not mention illegal immigration or the border crisis, although it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, that all or at least the a vast majority of illegal fentanyl is coming into the U.S from across our southern border.

According to The San Diego Tribune, during the initial nine months of this fiscal year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection gathered more than 5,000 pounds of the drug at various locations and exercises in Imperial and San Diego counties, which is around 60% of the entire volume of the drug confiscated by border authorities across the country. The current thought is that the volume confiscated is dwarfed by the amount that gets through.

The second step in combatting the fentanyl crisis would be closing the border. President Biden and DHS Secretary Mayorkas are more concerned with the phantom whipping of migrants than with the fentanyl that is coming across the border (from Yahoo: DHS Secretary Mayorkas Was Informed ‘Whipping’ Incident Was Bogus Hours Before He Condemned Border Patrol Agents).

Since JB, VP Harris, and Mayorkas will not take the second step and admit that the porous border is a problem, any possible resolution will not be occurring in the foreseeable future.

May I suggest that if one has a family member or a friend die from fentanyl, he/she should send a personal note to President Biden thanking him for doing …

NOTHING!

10/18/22

Just today I read a story about Judge Charles Gilchrist in Harnett County, North Carolina. It appears to me that Judge Charles Gilchrist has a King Charles complex. This North Carolina judge apparently thinks in a ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ vindictive manner with no possible room for discussion or compromise. 

Judge Gilchrist jailed Gregory Hahn, 47, for contempt of court after he refused to wear a face mask in Judge Charles Gilchrist’s courtroom. Gilchrist is reportedly the only judge in the county who has implemented a mask mandate. Furthermore, according to Superior Court clerk Renee Whittenton, “You can go in any district courtroom without a mask, you can come into superior court without a mask and the [district attorney’s] office without a mask, but with Judge Gilchrist he has a mandate that you must wear a mask.”

Hahn said potential jurors were not told about the mask requirements. There was no notice on his summons. And there is not signage at the courthouse indicating masks are required.

“I said, ‘I’m not going to wear a mask.’ He said, ‘I understand you don’t want to wear a mask,’ and I said, ‘That is correct, sir,’ and he says, ‘Why?’”

Hahn said the judge asked him again if he would refuse to wear a mask in the courtroom. He told Gilchrist that was correct.

“[Gilchrist] said ‘24 hours in the Harnett County jail,’” Hahn told WRAL.

Hahn was then handcuffed, booked, and taken to jail under no bond for contempt of court.

Harnett and Lee Counties issued a joint order on March 10, 2022, permitting the presiding judge in each courtroom to decide, at their discretion, whether masks are required, WRAL reported. Masks are optional in hallways, foyers, restrooms, meeting rooms, and other areas elsewhere in the courthouse. 

Hahn said he asked the judge if he could be excused since it was one day in jail.

He recounted that Gilchrist said, “I could, but I’m not going to.”

There are so many things wrong here with ‘King Charles’ that do not know where to start! Masks were in vogue six months ago, but no longer … get with the program, King Charles!

The most reasonable thing would have been a compromise … e.g. King Charles might have said, ‘if you do not wish to wear a mask in my courtroom, perhaps the court can arrange for you to serve with another judge.’ However, not so with King Charles!

Hahn said he asked the judge “if he was going to do this without giving me any due process? The judge told me that was correct,” Hahn said. “I explained I was a single parent and needed to contact my son, the judge refused.”

A single father not being able to call his son to update him on the situation is outrageous. Could it be that King Charles has no children, and is not aware that a father might actually need to be home at night.

Handcuffed!! No bond!! OMG!

Not surprising to me … King Charles is a Democrat.

However, the topper is that when King Charles was admonishing Gregory Hahn, King Charles was not wearing a mask!

10/17/22

I found one of my pieces from over two years ago, and it only goes to demonstrate how two-faced “those in the know” were.

An Interesting Dichotomy

Another episode in the “mask, no mask” story is evolving under our very noses (or perhaps when discussing masks, we should rather say, “over our very noses!”). As background we have been told by “those in the know” that the wearing of face masks is very important from a public health perspective, as this is the way to prevent further spread of Covid-19. Last week, before the rioting (for those more P.C. . . . protesting), the headlines and the news were all about Covid-19. One preaching letter to the editor went so far as to castigate anyone not wearing a mask while outside; as that should be viewed as acting detrimental to the good of society. (As it was only a letter, without an accompanying picture, I could not see how high her pulpit was! Perhaps she was the son  daughter of a preacher man!)

Now the leading news story is the protests throughout the country. BTW: I have no problem with peaceful protests. I would go so far as to encourage  peaceful protests, with the exception of those protests that block traffic, especially those that block highways. (“You have a right and are free to protest as long as you do not restrict my freedom.” – I just made that up! . . . sounds pretty good, heh?)

As far as protesting and masks, I have no trouble agreeing with the silent protestors not wearing masks, as with no speaking, the potential virus cannot travel very far. However, the shouting protestors without masks should be a big no-no, because, as we all should now be aware, shouting significantly expels more virus and for a longer distance. . . . e.g. meatpacking plants.   [BTW: I have been looking for a letter from “Mrs. Preacher” concerning protesters not wearing masks … but I have yet to anything from her or anybody else for that manner.]

In today’s paper, the region’s public health officer. Dr. Wilma Wooten,  commented that there is no public health crystal ball that shows a clear picture of whether or not protests will cause a Covid surge. 

Really, Wilma! Would it not have been better to say something like, “although we have no studies on the effects of loud protests and the spread of Covid, it is highly likely that we will see an increase in Covid cases over the next few weeks. From a public health standpoint, I would strongly suggest that all protesters wear masks.”

If we do not see an increase, then perhaps Dr. Wooten could suggest that based on this “protest experiment,” all businesses should open up, and no further masks should be required when outside.”

6/4/20

Back in May, Joe Biden threatened to take away school lunch programs from those schools that didn’t allow boys in girls bathrooms. If you recall, the U.S. Department of Agriculture officially embraced President Joe Biden’s transgender agenda and was taking steps to ensure schools comply. If schools didn’t adopt transgender bathroom policies, the Biden administration planned to withhold food funds intended for needy children. In other words, “do it my way or else!”

Lately those on the left have adopted this “or else” threat more and more.

The Department of Justice on 10/5/22 charged eleven pro-life protesters with violating federal law against blocking abortion clinics. If convicted, those charged with conspiracy could face up to eleven years in prison and fines up to $250,000, the DOJ confirmed.

These alleged offense occurred back in March 2021, and one must ask why it took so long to charge these individuals. As I have pointed out before, it is now all about intimidation! 

What the DOJ is now saying, “Do it my way, or else!”

However, this “or else” way of acting is not limited to Biden’s Department of Agriculture and Biden’s DOJ. Google has recently lowered the boom on conservative Issues and Insights 

To Google’s content police, Ramirez’s cartoons are “shocking content” and it is restricting ads on a page where a catalog of them appears. FYI,

political cartoonist Michael Ramirez has won two Pulitzer Prizes . 

In addition, Google has said that many of the printed articles on Issues and Insights violate its rules. Here’s a partial list of the recent content that Google says violate its rules, and the reason given. Judge for yourself whether Google is being reasonable or is just trying to censor content that doesn’t fit the leftist agenda.

• What We’re Reading: Fauci’s Fantasy, Deep State Bias, Recession Denial … And More — dangerous and derogatory content, and unreliable and harmful claims
• Americans Very Worried About Biden’s Mental Health: I&I/TIPP Poll — dangerous or derogatory content
• Category – World’s Greatest Cartoonist — shocking content
• More Bad News For The Eco-Radicals — unreliable and harmful claims

In other words … “think like us , or else!”

Recognize that this “or else” philosophy seems to be seeping into the 

modus operandi of RINOS, specifically Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He targeted Elon Musk over recent Twitter posts and warned that senators could take away Tesla’s tax breaks, after Musk urged for de-escalation of the Russia–Ukraine war. Musk had written, “I still very much support Ukraine, but am convinced that massive escalation of the war will cause great harm to Ukraine and possibly the world,”

That prompted a critical comment and warning from Graham who suggested that lawmakers “should revisit the electric vehicle tax credit boondoggle.”

(FYI: During the early part of the Ukraine–Russia conflict, Musk announced that he would use his Starlink Internet service to aid Ukraine’s government as well as its military efforts against Russia. This week, Musk confirmed that SpaceX spent $80 million on Starlink in the Eastern European country.) 

Basically, what Sen. Graham was saying was, “either think like me …or else!” Shame on you, Sen Graham!

10/15/22

When someone says something that is demonstrably false there are a few possibilities:

1. Perhaps that individual is intentionally lying or, giving the benefit of the doubt to him/her, merely “stretching the truth.”
2. The second possibility is that the individual is innocently passing along something that someone had told him. Saying something is true without making sure about its veracity is a fault of a different color … but it is not lying.
3. Thirdly, it is possible that the falsehood happened a very long time ago and was something minor to boot. If an eighty year old   individual said that so-and-so was at his fiftieth birthday, and he wasn’t … thirty years is a long time and in the scheme of things, a fiftieth birthday party is pretty inconsequential.
4. Said individual is losing it. Saying X is true when it is not, is worrisome, especially if X is something that a normal person would never forget. For example, if a loved one of that individual died a horrific death with much suffering, surely that would be something a normal person would never forget. If that individual were to say that his son died in a traffic accident when in fact his son died a very painful and unforgettable death with much suffering from cancer would not only be unlikely, but impossible. … Impossible if said individual was playing with a full deck. 

        If you were going on vacation, would you trust that individual with the 

        responsibility of safeguarding your house while you were away?  … 

        No way! To entrust him with taking care of your house sounds very 

       scary to me.

        God only knows what might happen to your house it was  under his 

        tutelage.

Unfortunately, we have a similar situation here in the U.S. The person who is ultimately responsible for the safety of all of our houses appears to be losing it!

Here I am talking about President Joe Biden who inaccurately said during remarks in Colorado on 10/12/22 that he had a son who died in Iraq. Biden appeared to be referring to his late son Beau Biden when he described himself as the “father of a man who won the bronze star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq.”

However, despite what President Biden said on 10/12, Beau Biden passed away in 2015 after suffering from brain cancer.

“”It is with broken hearts that Hallie, Hunter, Ashley, Jill and I announce the passing of our husband, brother and son, Beau, after he battled brain cancer with the same integrity, courage and strength he demonstrated every day of his life,” Biden said in a statement at the time.

Like I said above, when someone says something that is demonstrably false there are a few possibilities, and I will now address these possibilities sequentially:

Do I think the President Biden was willfully lying when he said that his son, Beau, lost his life in Iraq. No, I do not think that he was purposely lying.

Likewise this is not a case of someone innocently passing along something someone had told him. As noted in the above 2015 Biden statement, he was fully cognizant that his son had died from a brain tumor.

In addition, this falsehood is not about something that happened a very long time ago and was not about something minor.The death of his son happened a mere seven years ago, and Beau’s death was far, far from being something minor.

Finally, we are left with the possibility that Joe Biden is losing it. A few weeks ago at an awards type presentation, President Biden repeatedly called for a woman to come up to the stage. Unfortunately, this Congresswoman was dead! I guess one could weakly alibi that the President had not heard about her death in a traffic accident … notice that I said “weakly!” Or that he had forgotten that she had died. However, how could anyone forget how his son had died? The fact that Joe Biden stated that his son had died in Iraq is indeed very scary to me. In his present state of mind would you trust him to look after your house ? …  No, me neither!

10/14/22