If there are no police departments we can call when we have safety and security problems, individual communities made up of all races, colors, and creeds that care about this sort of quality-of-life issue will have to band together to form and/or hire private companies to be there for us the way the vast majority of police used to be. This in no way means we taxpayers will have more money in our pockets because we all know taxes that used to pay for police will now be diverted to other agencies. The money we will pay for protection will be extra. That may mean nowhere nearly as much discretionary money available to spend at Amazon.

Jackson Brannon Call Mathew Hilton, he claims to be Wonder Woman and will be right there!!! 4 weeks ago
loader
loader
Attachment

In the Biblical Book of Daniel, we are told that before the Anointed One comes (for the first time, if you’re Jewish; for the Second Coming, if you adhere to Christian theology), “there will be clarity.” For me, this means that anything that raises the level of clarity, such as the New York Times’s firing of anyone who allows anything on its pages that disagrees with either the paper’s accepted narrative or endorsed policies, is a good thing. When the New York Times, its readers, and supporters accept the paper as a left-wing, perhaps a far-left-wing, publication, it raises the level of clarity. When they present the New York Times as a dispassionate dispenser of fact and of opinions of all stripes (when it clearly is not and has not been for more than a century), they muddle clarity and delay the time of redemption. I say Bravo to the New York Times, not for its policies and narratives, which I find detestable, but for raising the level of clarity in the world. No longer will anyone of integrity ever be able to point to the New York Times as the purveyor of “all the news that’s fit to print,” but, rather, as the source of “all the news that fits” its policies, which are leftist to the core and the antithesis of free, balanced, and unafraid. Viva clarity!

Am I the only one who believes this issue between President Trump and Twitter is a blessing in disguise? I say that because Twitter, like all the most popular social media platforms, including Facebook, are private companies whose left-wing biases are no secret. We all know people--perhaps some of you ARE some people--who have been put in what they call "Facebook Prison," which, I assume, means the individual cannot post messages on the platform. This is happening for two reasons: First, as Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) is trying to correct, these social media companies want to behave as if they were private publications with the right to censor anyone who appears in their pages, but they want the right of public utilities not to be sued for libel or slander. They can't have it both ways. However, if they are going to behave like private publications (without the bother of knowing they can be sued for slander when someone engages in it on their platform), they the answer has to be: We need more platforms. I hope President Trump realizes he does not need Twitter as much as Twitter needs him. If he starts using another, similar platform, his followers will find him there, and they will start using this new platform. Twitter will have real compe*i**on, and that will make things better for everyone. The same has to happen to Facebook. Let's bring compe*i**on to social media, and we will all see improvement.

I think that admission probably ended Klobuchar's chances of being chosen by Biden (and, especially by his handlers) as the candidate for VEEP.

At my husband's hospital in NJ, the hospital pharmacy stocks the drug (as well as the other ingredients in the "c***tail," and doctors can prescribe it for their patients. While some Democrat governors have threatened doctors for prescribing the drug and some pharmacists for filling the prescriptions, most physicians know how to get around that obstacle and most pharmacists (certainly those who have maintained close relationships with physicians for years) will fill the prescriptions written by doctors they know and trust.

Thank you, Dr. Pelosi. Go back and eat your ice cream. That's very healthy, too.

I hope we all agree that politics should have no role in medicine.

For many years, the mantra on abortion has been that the decision on how to proceed is “between the patient and her doctor.” Now that the subject is a nasty virus, why is the decision on how to proceed no longer “between patient and doctor?” The patient, President Donald Trump, consulted his doctor about the drug hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc. The doctor, who is familiar with his patient’s heart, evidently agreed it was something he could safely prescribe for Mr. Trump. Therefore, the patient, in consultation with his doctor, is taking this drug, a medication which many patients swear is what cured them; a drug many doctors say is extremely helpful if taken at the beginning of the disease (but doesn’t help at all later on); a drug which other doctors do not prescribe at all. If Mr. Trump’s doctor had said no, the patient would either have listened to him or would have found another doctor—which is something patients do every day when they no longer like something about their physician. Why is this a problem? The drug is not available over the counter; it requires a prescription. If people want to take it in the same fashion as the President, they will consult their physicians. If the physician says yes, the patient will get the drug. If the physician says no, the patient will either agree not to take it or will find another physician who will prescribe it. Bottom line, if abortion is between a doctor and the patient, then the decision on whether to take hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc is between a doctor and the patient. Period. You can’t have it both ways.

The big question is: How are we going to make the Communist Party of China (CPC), the government of China, pay for the damages they have caused? To sue them, we need a relaxation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, which holds strict limits on whether a foreign government can be sued in U.S. courts. We should not attempt to sue China in international courts for two reasons: the Chinese could work to delay any ruling in that venue for decades and, second, the corruption in international courts is well known.
If the US government and/or individuals can sue China, the punitive damages can be collected from the interest on debt that we owe the Chinese and we can default on US treasuries held by the Chinese, not because we can’t pay them (which is why we don’t have to declare bankruptcy), but because these would represent the punitive fines that have been levelled a*a*nst the CPC by US courts.
This money would set off what we have already had to pay (and may have to keep on paying) to our citizens because of the actions of the CPC and would keep those pay-outs from creating inflation in our own economy as we get back on our feet.
I would not be surprised at all to learn that this was President Trump’s plan ever since we had to fight back a*a*nst the actions of the CPC and the virus they created and promulgated throughout the world.

There might almost (and I use the word “almost” deliberately) be a purpose to this “summit” if it were going to held either alongside or sequentially with a similar event featuring people of equal stature who would expound on the benefits of home-schooling. That way, people attending both “summits” could see pros and cons and could make up their own minds as to which to support. But expecting that kind of academic honesty these days from a place like Harvard is an oxymoron. If it allowed that, it just wouldn’t be Harvard. As we used to say, if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle.

One of the major problems is the illogical, nonsensical way some state officials have approached the issue of guidelines. The American people are not stupid. Explain to us why you are doing something and, if it makes sense, we’ll comply. But when you tell us we can shop for alcohol, but can’t sit in parked cars, six feet away from anyone who is not part of our immediate family, in order to pray in a church parking lot, we rebel because it makes no sense. When you tell us we can shop for food but not for paint which is in the same store just an aisle or two away from the tuna, we rebel because it makes no sense. When you tell us we can mow our own lawns but we can’t hire someone to do it for us, we rebel. Laws must make sense. When they do, people will comply. When they don’t, not only do we rebel a**inst those regulations, we lose faith in the entire system, and then everyone loses.

Gary Von Neida George (evil) Soros, provided Us with all the clues to expose His "evil fellow travelers". 3 months ago
loader
loader
Attachment
Keith LaDue Bravo Zulu, Susan! 3 months ago
loader
loader
Attachment

One of the major problems is the illogical, arbitrary way some state officials have approached the issue of guidelines and the lockdown. The American people are not stupid. Explain to us why you are doing something and, if it makes sense, we’ll comply. But when you tell us we CAN shop for alcohol, but CAN’T sit in parked cars in a church parking lot, six feet away from anyone who is not part of our immediate family, in order to pray, we rebel because it makes no sense. When you tell us we CAN shop for food but NOT for paint which is in the same store just an aisle or two away from the tuna, we rebel because it makes no sense. When you tell us we can mow our own lawns but we can’t hire someone to do it for us, we rebel. Laws must make sense. When they do, people will comply. When they don’t, not only do we rebel a**inst those regulations, we lose faith in the entire system, and then everyone loses. The President has been logical and caring. He is obviously trying hard not to be a dictator and is clearly doing his best. The same cannot be said for all state officials.

Here’s an idea: Let’s accuse the Covid 19 virus of racism and prosecute it to the full extent of the law. With any luck, we can sentence it to death and be done with it. Now why did we need the likes of Warren and Omar to come up with this?

The fact that AOC and her ilk think the characterization of a person as “not smart or articulate” is “a racist & classist PR campaign” says more about their variety of leftists than it does about Amazon or any of its leaders. What AOC and her minions are saying is that anyone who is “not smart or articulate” belongs, by definition, to a group ag**nst whom there could be “racist or classist” attacks. No one at Amazon said that. No race or class was designated by Amazon as “not smart or articulate.” Only AOC and her supporters did that. Chris Smalls, call your office.

So now hydroxychloroquine has been approved by the FDA to treat coronavirus (as of this morning). That supersedes anything these crazy governors can do or say. Now, this just remains part of their record, and, please God, voters will remember it—and we certainly will remind them. The rest is up to them.