Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
I asked my North Korean friend how it was there.

He said he couldn’t complain.


What do you get if you cross Islam and Capitalism?

No more jokes about the profit.


RIYADH — As in most countries around the world on September 11, a moment of silence was held in the Middle Eastern country of Saudi Arabia on Sunday. Theirs was 15 seconds long, one second for each Saudi national lost in the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001.

“21 years ago, we lost a lot of good pilots,” King Salman reflected during a remembrance ceremony carried live on all major networks from Riyadh. “Sure, we didn’t expect them to return, but I knew some of them quite well. Though Egyptian, Mohammed Atta’s dedication to the cause isn’t to be overlooked, and we grant him the title of ‘Honorary Saudi.’ The man was razor-focused, and I think his body of work speaks for itself.”

The King reflected on sending some of his dear friends to pilot training in San Diego.

“We all thought my brother, the late King Abdullah, would buy us all new Gulfstreams and needed more pilots. It wasn’t until later we learned that a friend of the family was cashing in some favors over construction contracts.” King Salman then chuckled lightly and exclaimed, “Imagine our surprise when a month after 9/11, it was Afghanistan that was being invaded! We really dodged a bullet there.”

The Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, was quick to point out that many nations lost citizens on 9/11.

“Today, the King shares the world’s grief. Be it a firefighter going back up the stairs to save one more person, a traffic cop shielding innocent bystanders from debris, or the pilot who cost thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours to qualify as a pilot on the 737. From Mecca to Medina, we remember these heroes today.”


Lady (to her doctor): "What l am worried about is my height and not my weight."

Doctor: "How come?"

Lady: "According to my weight, my height should be 7 feet, 8 inches.”


It was my wedding day, and no one was happier than my 78-year-old mother.

But as she approached the church doors, an usher asked, “Which side are you on?”

“Oh, no,” she said. “Are they fighting already?”

Quote of the Times;
"What are the chances that Leon Trotsky (one of the masterminds behind the Bolshevik Revolution and head of the Red Army) had a great granddaughter who happens to be the director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (under Fauci's NIH)? Meet Dr. Nora Volkow. It makes you want to dig deep into the CDC (which operates as an independent entity just like the Federal Reserve). How many people have died of drug overdose (Fentanyl) on her watch? Question everything." - Mel Hostalrich

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Researcher Alleges FBI Seriously Undercounts Armed Citizen Responses to Active Shootings, Real Number 3x Higher by Warner Todd Huston

Firearm statistics expert John R. Lott Jr. recently exposed the FBI’s gross underestimation of the number of times armed citizens have stopped a mass shooting event and suggested that the agency is purposefully muffing the numbers for political reasons.

In his review of the FBI data published by Real Clear Investigations, Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, attributed the discrepancies to errors on the FBI’s part, including misidentifying and overlooking incidents.

The FBI insists that only 4.4 percent of active shooter incidents between 2014 and 2021 were interrupted or stopped by an armed citizen. But according to Lott, the number is actually 14.6 percent.

The FBI defines an active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” The bureau excludes incidents it deems “related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf,” according to Lott.

Lott notes that the FBI’s narrow criteria necessarily eliminate many incidents that should be included.

For instance, between 2014 and 2021, the bureau counted 252 active shooter incidents, but Lott found 281. The FBI reported only 11 shootings stopped by an armed citizen, while Lott found 41.

Lott finds the discrepancies glaring. As do others.

“So much of our public understanding of this issue is malformed by this single agency,” said Theo Wold, former acting assistant U.S. attorney general, according to Lott’s report.

“When the bureau gets it so systematically — and persistently — wrong, the cascading effect is incredibly deleterious. The FBI exerts considerable influence over state and local law enforcement and policymakers at all levels of government.”

“Although collecting such data is fraught with challenges,” Lott wrote, “some see a pattern of distortion in the FBI numbers because the numbers almost exclusively go one way, minimizing the life-saving actions of armed citizens.”

Wold and Lott are right. When the FBI purposely lowballs statistics like this, the left uses the fake numbers in a direct attack on our Second Amendment rights.

Indeed, the media sits like a vulture just waiting for data that can be used to destroy the “good guy with a gun” narrative. Lott pointed out that The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The New York Times went all-in to blast the pro-gun position after armed citizen Elisjsha Dicken ended a mall shooting in Greenwood, Indiana, in July.

After the shooting, Indiana University law professor Jody Madeira told the Post that armed citizens are “particularly dangerous.” Madeira added, “You’ll get this idea that these people are needed out there to help protect citizens, when in reality that’s the job of the police.”

Unfortunately, the FBI isn’t merely fudging data. It is also putting Americans in danger. By putting out misleading statistics that are used to discount the benefits of a legally armed citizenry, the FBI is necessarily putting lives at risk.

After all, if the FBI’s data is successfully used to thwart gun ownership, mass shooters will be given a free hand to take out as many people as they can until police intercede.

The FBI should be faithfully serving Americans, not cooking its books to help liberals try to take guns away from legally armed citizens.

News of the Times;
Yes, the Artemis flight was canceled.

Like so many other flights this summer.


In Pennsylvania, a man was arrested after trying to sell human body parts on Facebook.

Must not be a normal person.

I mean, a normal person would have used Ebay.


A man was contesting his speeding ticket in front of the judge.

Judge: Sir, it says here that you were speeding 20 miles over the speed limit.

Man: Impossible, your Honor. There’s NO WAY I could have been going that fast!

Judge: Really! Why is that?

Man: Well, my wife was away visiting her parents and after a week of partying, I was on my way to pick her up. The house was a mess, I hadn’t done any dishes, the bed wasn’t made in a week and there were pizza boxes all over the house. Now let me ask you, your Honor, do you think I’d be speeding to go pick her up?

Judge: Case dismissed!


Signs your Prime Minister may be Partying Too Much:

That new cabinet post she just created: Secretary of Booze.
The phrase "Party like a Prime Minister" is really catching on.
Only Prime Minister ever to have a "First Bartender".
Those paper clip and pen holders sure look a lot like shot glasses.
Will only meet with parliament during Happy Hour.


At the end of the physics lecture, I asked my professor, “What happened before The Big Bang?”

“Sorry, no time.”, he said.

Quote of the Times;
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” - Henry Kissinger

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
'Unscientific nonsense': Nobel-winning biologist shreds trans 'madness' by Bob Unruh

'All mammals have two sexes, and man is a mammal'

Many politicians these days, mostly Democrats and other leftists, are enamored with the transgender ideology: that boys can be turned into girls and girls into boys with life-altering chemicals and body-mutilating surgeries.

But it's "madness."

That's the opinion of Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, a Nobel Price-winning German developmental biologist.

It's also "unscientific" and "nonsense."

The New American reported on the comments which originally came in an interview with the German magazine EMMA, and were translated.

"All mammals have two sexes, and man is a mammal," she said. "There’s the one sex that produces the eggs, has two X chromosomes. That’s called female. And there’s the other one that makes the sperm, has an X and a Y chromosome. That’s called male."

The scientist, 79, won the Nobel in 1995 in Physiology or Medicine, and has some expertise in this area.

The report said she explained, "While there are animals that produce both sperm and eggs, such as snails, and thus can create offspring without having to mate, this 'does not change the fact that there are two germ cells, eggs and sperm, and therefore two sexes.'"

She noted Sven Lehmann, Germany's "Commissioner for the Acceptance of Sexual and Gender Diversity," claimed believing in two genders is "unscientific" but in that opinion, he's "unscientific."

"Perhaps Herr Lehmann missed the basic course in biology," the report said she responded.

There is variation within sexes, she confirms, as there are "very 'feminine" men and very 'masculine' women." That that has to do with culture, hormone levels and other things.

But she confirmed gender is "built into every single chromosome in the human body" and cannot be changed.

She explained, "How you feel can be changed by social and psychological circumstances. But not biological sex. Wherever science is really practiced, this is also completely indisputable."

"Interventions," including surgeries, are serious and irreversible, she noted.

"But the hormones also add something to the body that is not intended there," she said, citing both physical and psychological changes.

"The body cannot handle it well in the long run. Every hormone you take has side effects. Taking hormones is inherently dangerous," she said in the report.

And her government's agenda of letting children as young as 14 choose their gender?

"Madness," she said.

News of the Times;
What does Lady Di and Pink Floyd have in common?

Their last hit was The Wall.


What do you call a wife that knows where her husband is all the time?

A widow.


One day during cooking class, the teacher, Mrs. Jones, was extolling her secrets for preparing perfect sauces. When she ordered us to the stoves to prepare our assignments, she said, "Don't forget to use wooden spoons."

As I stirred my sauce, I contemplated the physics behind the mystery of the wooden spoon, and decided it must have something to do with heat conduction. I approached Mrs. Jones to test my theory.

"Why wooden spoons?" I asked.

"Because," she replied, "if I have to sit here listening to twenty-three metal spoons banging against metal pots, I'll go nuts."


A little three-year-old boy is sitting on the toilet. His mother thinks he has been in there too long, so she goes in to see what's up. The little boy is sitting on the toilet reading a book. But about every 10 seconds or so he puts the book down, grips onto to the toilet seat with his left hand and hits himself on top of the head with his right hand.

His mother says: "Billy, are you all right? You've been in here for a while.

Billy says: "I'm fine, mommy... just haven't gone 'doody' yet."

Mother says: "OK, you can stay here a few more minutes. But Billy, why are you hitting yourself on the head?"

Billy says: "Works for ketchup!"


Will Smith posted on Instagram that he got quite a scare this week when he found a tarantula crawling around in his home.

I'm sure the spider never knew what slapped him.

Quote of the Times;
“[Biden’s] refusal to secure the border is a direct threat to our national security.” - Texas Gov. Abbott sharing data showing that 66 terrorists on the Terrorist Watchlist have been encountered along the border so far in FY 2022, compared to 15 in FY 2021 and 3 in FY 2020.

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Fake History of the 20th Century

It’s one of the most famous moments in sports history, or 20th Century American history, period. Jackie Robinson, the first player to break the pro baseball color barrier, took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers on the road against the Cincinnati Reds. A hostile racist crowd poured abuse down onto him. But then, Robinson’s teammate Harold “Pee Wee” Reese shamed and quieted the crowd by walking over to Robinson and putting his arm around him in a gesture of support. It’s a moment immortalized in film, in children’s books, and even in bronze.

But as the Wall Street Journal revealed in a recent article, the whole episode never happened:

No newspapers reported the event at the time. In fact, the New York Post said Robinson had been “the toast of the town” in Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Post reported the day after the game: “If anyone had any objection to Jackie’s presence on the field, he failed to make himself heard.” Writing in his weekly newspaper column, Robinson called his visit to Crosley Field “a nice experience.”

The story of the Cincinnati embrace surfaced decades later in an interview with one of Robinson’s teammates, pitcher Rex Barney. But Barney got one of the key details wrong. He said he was warming up to pitch in the first inning of the game when Reese shut down the hecklers. The fact is, Barney didn’t pitch that day until the seventh inning.

In interviews I conducted with Robinson’s wife, Rachel, for my book on his breakthrough season, she insisted that no such hug occurred in 1947.


This wasn’t just a harmless myth. For decades, ordinary people in Cincinnati were tarred as hateful racists in order to further a specific narrative about America. They weren’t the only victims of myths related to Robinson. Enos Slaughter of the St. Louis Cardinals has been villainized for decades for slashing Robinson with his spiked cleats during a play at first base. But Slaughter always insisted the injury was accidental, and sportswriters at the game from both St. Louis and New York City agreed, saying that nothing appeared deliberate about the incident. Similarly, in the 2013 film about Robinson, Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Fritz Ostermueller is portrayed intentionally hitting Robinson in the head with a pitch before insulting him with a racist comment. In reality, the pitch hit Robinson on the wrist and there is no evidence of such an insult at all.

But all three myths will live on, because they are useful. They promote a certain story about America: That until very recently the country was overwhelmingly bigoted and hateful, and good for very little else. In fact, America’s entire 20th-century history, as it is taught in schools and portrayed on screen, is essentially “fake.” It is a sequence of myths atop myths, created to make Americans hate their ancestors and their history.

A full list of these myths could fill several books. For now, we will illustrate the point with some central examples.

The Tulsa Riot

As America steadily replaces pride in its achievements with a new white guilt national ideology, the nation has craved greater atrocities to further fuel a deep sense of shame. Lynchings and segregation were bad, but they lack the electric spark of a Kristallnacht.

For Americans desperate to hate their grandparents, then, the Tulsa Riot of 1921 has become the perfect symbol. Over the past few years, the riot has been promoted with a strange amount of glee. It was used to open HBO’s awful “Watchmen” adaptation, and both the press and President Biden made a major show of the riot’s 100th anniversary last year. Biden’s remarks on that anniversary repeat what is, essentially, the mainstream understanding of events:

[T]he mob terrorized Greenwood [the black neighborhood affected by the riot] with torches and guns shooting at will. A mob tied a Black man, by the waist, to the back of their truck, with his head banging along the pavement as they drove off. A murdered Black family draped over the fence of their home outside. An elderly couple knelt by their bed, praying to God with their heart and their soul, when they were shot in the back of their heads. Private planes dropping explosives, the first and only domestic air assault of its kind on an American city here in Tulsa.

10,000 people were left destitute and homeless, placed in interment camps. As I was told today, they were told, “Don’t you mention you were ever in a camp or we’ll come and get you.” That’s a survivor story. … The death toll records by local officials said there were 36 people. That’s all, 36 people. Based on studies records and accounts, the likely number is much more than the multiple of hundreds. Untold bodies dumped into mass graves.


But as Scott Greer wrote for Revolver last year, every part of Biden’s statement is a gross factual distortion. Even the most exhaustive investigation of the event could only confirm 39 deaths (13 of them white), with the supposed “hundreds” of other victims lacking bodies, causes of death, or even names. There is little evidence of any aerial bombing happening. The “internment camps” were temporary housing for those displaced by the massive fire (apparently they were supposed to just be left without shelter?). Lurid tales of elderly couples executed while praying have remained just that, lurid tales, a kind of racist pornography passed down through the years without any serious effort to verify them.

Emmett Till

We don’t need to narrate to you the story of Emmett Till. You’ve heard it, your kids have heard it, everyone has heard it. Publications like the New York Times provide breaking Emmett Till news every few months. The constant drumbeat regarding the case has, ironically, fueled lynch mobs which have burst into nursing homes on the hunt for Carolyn Bryant, who accused Till of making sexual advances on her while she worked at a general store in Drew, Mississippi.

Emmett Till’s story isn’t a myth in the sense that it didn’t happen, or that Till deserved to die (he certainly did not). Rather, the myth of Emmett Till lies in how it is treated as a symbol of “typical” behavior in the Deep South shortly before desegregation. Till’s death, and the acquittal of his killers by an all-white jury, supposedly represent what was still normal behavior in the South even in the 1950s. But in fact, nothing about the case was typical, which was precisely why it generated so much attention. Mississippi’s governor, Hugh White, put enormous pressure on authorities to find the culprit. The largest law firm in Tallahatchie County, where the murder occurred, refused to represent Till’s killers. Mississippi’s white newspapers unanimously condemned the slaying and demanded justice:

The Greenwood Commonwealth, in a front-page editorial, stated, “The citizens of this area are determined that the guilty parties shall be punished to the full extent of the law.” The Vicksburg Post said, “The ghastly and wholly unprovoked murder . . . cannot be condoned, nor should there be anything less than swift and determined prosecution of those guilty of the heinous crime.” … The Clarksdale Press Register said, “Those who kidnapped and murdered Till have dealt the reputation of the South and Mississippi a savage blow. It is a blow from which we can recover only by accepting this violent and insane challenge to our laws and by prosecuting vigorously the individuals responsible for this crime.”

[A Case Study in Southern Justice: The Murder and Trial of Emmett Till]

Even the label of “lynching” is a misnomer. Till’s death wasn’t ad hoc mob justice, carried out in public. It was just a normal murder, carried out in secret and denied afterwards. When Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam went on trial for the murder, they didn’t proudly defend their actions, but instead denied them. Only after being acquitted did they admit the truth to “Look” magazine, at which point whatever support remained for the pair evaporated completely. The Bryants and Milams were essentially “canceled,” not by Northeastern elites but by their own Mississippi peers. Neighbors who had supported them during the trial were disgusted, and the hatred was so intense that both families had to leave the state.

Matthew Shepard

What Emmett Till has been for black activists, Matthew Shepard has become for the gay rights movement: the martyr whose violent death is supposedly emblematic of routine, homicidal violence that gays supposedly suffered routinely before the arrival of gay rights.

The traditional story is as simple as it gets: Matthew Shepard was a vivacious gay college student in conservative Wyoming, a budding activist with a lifetime of potential ahead of him, when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality by two men who later claimed in court that they killed Matthew in a state of “gay panic,” disturbed by his sexual advances.

Virtually overnight, gay activists made Shepard a national martyr. A play about his life and death, “The Laramie Project”, became one of the most-performed productions in America. Elton John even wrote a terrible song about him.

But it was all based on nothing.

Stephen Jimenez, himself a gay man, spent more than a decade reporting on the Shepard case, and in 2013 he published the definitive book on the case, “The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard”.

After some 13 years of digging, including interviews with more than 100 sources, including Shepard’s killers, Jimenez makes a radioactive suggestion: The grisly murder, 15 years ago this month, was no hate crime.

Shepard’s tragic and untimely demise may not have been fueled by his sexual orientation, but by drugs. For Shepard had likely agreed to trade methamphetamines for sex. And it killed him.

Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, now doing life for murder, were not homophobes, writes Jimenez. Shepard was lured from a bar, then driven to the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo., where he was robbed. McKinney savagely pistol-whipped Shepard with the barrel of a .357 Magnum. The men then hung him, barefoot, freezing and barely alive, on a fence, in a pose resembling a crucifixion. He died six days later.

But McKinney was no stranger. Strung out on meth for a week before the slaying, writes Jimenez, McKinney likely had been Shepard’s gay or bisexual lover.

[New York Post]

The full story came out nearly a decade ago. It even got coverage in mainstream and even progressive outlets, such as The Daily Beast and The Nation.

But then the Southern Poverty Law Center, always a relentless enforcer of narrative orthodoxy, trashed Jimenez on its “Hatewatch” blog. Media Matters did its part as well. America still has a federal hate crime law named after Shepard. “The Laramie Project” continues to be one of the most-staged plays in America, ensuring that Americans from Fullerton, CA to Chestertown, MD continue to learn the Myth of Matt.

Central Park Five

As the media struggle to frame America’s tough-on-crime era as a mistake rather than an achievement, they have settled on the Central Park Five as their preferred case to indict America’s “racist” criminal justice system. For one, it offers a chance to not only attack all of America, but also President Trump:

President Trump said on Tuesday that he would not apologize for his harsh comments in 1989 about the Central Park Five, the five black and Latino men who as teenagers were wrongly convicted of the brutal rape of a jogger in New York City.

In 1989, Mr. Trump placed full-page advertisements in four New York City newspapers, including The New York Times, calling for the state to adopt the death penalty for killers. He made clear that he was voicing this opinion because of the rape and assault of Trisha Meili, a woman who had been jogging in Central Park.

The five teenagers were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to prison for gang-raping and nearly killing Ms. Meili.

They said the police had coerced them into confessing to a crime they did not commit. Their convictions were vacated in 2002, and the city paid $41 million in 2014 to settle their civil rights lawsuit.

[New York Times]

On an April night in 1989, a mob of “youths”, went “wilding” through Central Park, robbing and assaulting anybody they came across in an orgy of mayhem. The climax of the crime spree was the horrifying assault on 28-year-old investment banker Trisha Meili, who was unwisely jogging through the park that evening. After the “youths” raped and sodomized her, Meili lost 75 percent of the blood in her body and spent 12 days in a coma before emerging with significant brain damage.

Five teenagers — Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise — were convicted of participating in the rape. In 2002, the convictions were vacated after convicted murderer Matias Reyes claimed to be the sole perpetrator. Reyes received a transfer to a nicer prison for his trouble. In 2014 Bill De Blasio awarded the five with a $40 million settlement. In 2019, Netflix dramatized the saga of the Central Park Five with its miniseries “When They See Us”. The show’s release prompted the cancellation of the case’s prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer, who resigned from her post as a lecturer at Columbia Law, and former Manhattan sex crimes unit chief Linda Fairstein, who was dropped by the publisher of her mystery novels.

But the truth is, the Central Park Five were almost certainly guilty, and in a just world all five would still be in prison (or better yet, executed). Reyes’s confession proves nothing, as it was known from the beginning that many people were involved in the attack. A 2003 NYPD report reaffirmed the group nature of the assault, and found no evidence of police or prosecutorial misconduct. Ann Coulter has been one of the few writers brave enough to tell the truth about the case:

The five accused rapists — Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam and Kharey Wise — were duly convicted of the 1989 Central Park rape, as well as other assaults in the park that night; “exonerated” 13 years later; and, more than a decade after that, paid $40 million by the city of New York to settle a malicious prosecution case within months of Bill de Blasio becoming mayor, despite city lawyers’ confidence that they would win at trial.

To his credit, Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to give the “exonerated” convicts a dime.

Today, they are civil rights heroes to Hollywood airheads and others completely unfamiliar with the facts of the case.

Here is just some of the evidence against them.

Santana was one of the first boys picked up in the park the night of the attacks, April 19, 1989. While being driven to the precinct house, he blurted out: “I had nothing to do with the rape.”

At this point, the jogger hadn’t been found. The police knew nothing about any rape. Richardson rode to the precinct with another boy, who announced to the police that he knew who did “the murder,” naming Antron McCray. Richardson concurred, saying, “Yeah. That’s who did it.”

Salaam confessed to the rape after the detective questioning him said that fingerprints had been found on the jogger’s clothing, and if the prints were his, he was “going down for the rape.” Salaam confessed immediately.

Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor the following morning, Wise said, “Damn, damn, that’s a lot of blood. … I knew she was bleeding, but I didn’t know how bad she was. It was really dark. I couldn’t see how much blood there was at night.” (She’d lost three-quarters of her blood.)

[Ann Coulter]

The evidence listed by Ann Coulter just goes on and on, you’ll have to click the above link to read it all.

So, in summary, the Central Park Five saga isn’t a case of systemic racism run amok. Instead, it’s a case study of how “exonerated” criminals are often anything but.


In 2016, President Barack Obama designated the site of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village as a national monument. The statement announcing the designation described the inn as the site of the “Stonewall Uprising”:

On June 28, 1969, the Stonewall Inn, one of the most frequented LGBT bars in the city, was raided by the New York City Police Department to enforce a law that made it illegal to sell alcoholic drinks to “homosexuals.” Customers and their allies resisted the police by refusing to show identification or go into a bathroom so that a police officer could verify their sex, and a crowd gathered outside. As word spread, the gathering grew in size and a riot ultimately ensued. Within days, Stonewall seemed to galvanize LGBT communities across the country, with LGBT activists organizing demonstrations to show support for LGBT rights in several cities. These events, which are now often referred to as the Stonewall Uprising, are widely considered to be a watershed moment when the LGBT community across the nation demonstrated its power to join together and demand equality and respect.

[Obama WH Archives]

In his second inaugural address in 2013, Obama placed Stonewall on par with the Seneca Falls convention and MLK’s Selma march as an epochal moment in American civil rights history. And there, in all likelihood, it will remain, a part of the national mythology, taught to children in schools as part of their now-mandatory “LGBTQ+ history” curriculum.

Missing from the Obama summaries are a few important facts: That the Stonewall Inn was owned by the Mafia, that it was blackmailing its patrons, that it had become the hub of a multimillion-dollar extortion ring the police hoped to break up. The police officer who led the raid, even after being browbeaten into an apology, always said the target of the raid was the mob, not the gays.

A Time To Kill

Okay, this isn’t a literal historical event like the others — but so what? John Grisham’s legal thriller, and its execrable 1996 movie adaptation, are exemplars of American popular culture’s favored approach to racial topics. The plot neatly fits into the preferred tropes of 20th century racial history: two white rednecks savagely rape a young black girl. Fearing the men will be let off the hook by a racist system, the girls’ father guns them both down in broad daylight. Then, despite a terrorist campaign by the local Ku Klux Klan, a local attorney heroically gets the father acquitted for the murders.

No doubt thousands of people who read Grisham’s book, or watched the movie, thought it was based on a true story. Grisham himself repeatedly encouraged that belief, telling fans that the book was inspired by a harrowing case from his early days as a lawyer:

Charlie Rose: When you were practicing law and you’re going to the courtroom and you look around you and the story goes, this is now the Grisham lore. When you weren’t busy with your own trials, you’d sort of sneak over there and you would see fascinating cases. A Time To Kill is based on one of those cases. The story of —

John Grisham: The inspiration came from something I saw in a courtroom one day. I really don’t know — I don’t think I would have ever written a novel had I not sort of ventured into this courtroom one day and seen this horrible drama unfold. A little girl had been raped and she was testifying against the man who did it. She was 11 years old, 10 or 11. Incredible testimony and I felt a great deal of sympathy for her but also caught myself thinking about her dad and what he was going through. I thought society really shouldn’t hold a father responsible for doing what he has to do if this little girl had been raped.

[Charlie Rose]

In interviews, Grisham drove home that he tried to make the book as authentic as possible with respect to “race relations” and the nature of the Deep South.

John Grisham: It’s a different type of story from The Firm or The Pelican Brief. It was written — I’m very biased. This is something I’m very protective of because it was written over a period of time. I never dreamed that I’d get it published. It’s very autobiographical. It was very painful to write. I couldn’t write —

Charlie Rose: It’s autobiographical in what way?

John Grisham: In the young attorney’s — basically me.

Charlie Rose: Painful because you’re trying to be truthful about yourself?

John Grisham: That, truthful about the race relations in the book, truthful about the deep south, the people. I wanted to be fair and accurate. I couldn’t write a book now because I have a daughter now. I didn’t have a daughter then and I go back then, I read the first chapters sometimes of A Time To Kill and wonder how anybody could write something like that because it deals with the rape of a child.

[Charlie Rose]

As it turns out, Grisham’s novel was based on a real case. Specifically, a case with the races reversed, as he finally revealed in 2014.

In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger, Grisham confirmed the case he watched involved the 1984 rapes of two teenage sisters in a remote farmhouse not many miles from his law office then.

Deputies arrested Willie James Harris, who confessed. Days later, Grisham heard the confession on tape, where the man shared details with all the emotion of reading a shopping list.

“It was pretty cold blooded — and also infuriating,” Grisham said. “It made you think revenge. He was really a nasty character.”

On July 11, 1984, the steamy sun beat down on Harris and his 17-year-old accomplice as they drove through a rural area near Southaven, looking for houses to break in.

Although just 21, Harris was newly paroled after spending 2½ years in the state prison — far short of the six-year sentence he received for two different burglaries. Time on the inside, however, hardened him, rather than changed his ways.

Heading down a gravel road, Harris and his accomplice spotted a farmhouse with no cars outside. They made their way to the front porch.

Smashing the front window, Harris entered the house, where two sisters, ages 16 and 12, were alone. The older sister, who had just finished taking a shower, spotted him and screamed. She attempted to lock herself in the bathroom, but Harris rammed his shoulder into the door.

The younger sister tried to hide in her bedroom, only to be met by Harris.

Over the next hour, Harris raped and beat the girls, leaving them for dead.

[Clarion Ledger]

In other words, Grisham took an authentic (and in America, disturbingly common) crime, and replaced it with a lurid fantasy that in reality almost never happens. According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, entire years have passed where there are zero white on black rapes in America.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997 Criminal Victimization Tables

Grisham, of course, is free to write novels about whatever made-up crimes he wants. But his claims of “authenticity” are a lie. With his debut novel, he took a real crime, committed against young girls by a man let out of prison early — sound familiar? — and used it as inspiration for a fever dream attacking Southern whites for their racism.

It is truly astonishing to learn how many morality tales from the textbooks of woke indoctrination turn out to be based on blatant falsehoods. Of course, it has long been a staple of political philosophy that every society depends on certain foundational and animating myths. In Plato’s “Republic”, Socrates suggests that even the most perfect imaginary polity requires some kind of “noble lie” to function successfully. What is most nefarious about the myths undergirding the Globalist American Empire is perhaps not so much that they are falsehoods, but they are deeply destructive and malicious falsehoods. The American people must understand not only the falsehood of the myths foisted upon them, but also the maliciousness behind such myths, in order to begin to escape from the spiritual and mental prison created for them by their corrupt and illegitimate ruling class.

News of the Times;
I’m so tired of Millennials and their attitudes.

Always walking around like they rent the place.


I got my wife a metal detector as a present, however she didn't like it.

Strange, as she always likes to dig up things from the past.


In the kids bedroom:

3 year old: I can't sleep

Father: Why not?

3 year old: There are scary monsters under my bed.

Father: Scarier than your mother?



Diary of a Shipwreck...

Week 1: Alone, doing well. Mentally Sound. Met a crab.

Week 2: I have married the crab.

Week 3: I have eaten my wife.


Wife: John, what becomes of a ballplayer when his eyesight starts to fail?

John: They make him an umpire.

Quote of the Times;
"One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Over 1,000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency” by Leslie Eastman

There is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that relatively early on in the covid pandemic cycle, leading infectious disease experts created the Great Barrington Declaration.

The formal declaration stressed that lockdowns were destructive and “focused protection” of vulnerable individuals was the way to properly address the highly infectious, novel virus. Over 4,000 scientists, including a good number of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, signed the document.

It turns out these scientists were correct.

The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of covid, official statistics suggest.

Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are currently dying each week from conditions other than the virus.

The Telegraph understands that the Department of Health has ordered an investigation into the figures amid concern that the deaths are linked to delays to and deferment of treatment for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

Perhaps it is time to consider if the World Climate Declaration, which has been signed by 1,200 climate scientists and related professionals, may be something to seriously consider, promote, and act on. In the document, these scientists affirm that there is “no climate emergency.”

The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.

The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy.

Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.

Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

The declaration is being promoted by the CLINTEL Group, which plans to give “solicited and unsolicited” advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

I am thinking that most of the advice they will give will be unsolicited. Here is hoping that policy makers, teachers, and everyone else listen to the group’s many points:

• Natural causes contribute to climate changes.
• Warming has been slower than predicted.
• Climate policy is being based on inadequate models.
• Carbon dioxide is plant food, and the basis for life on Earth.
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters.

Perhaps the last point the CLINTEL Group makes is the most critical: Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

For those of you with a background in the climate sciences, and who would like to sign, information:

If “Green New Deal” polices are allowed to continue, they will be even more destructive on this nation and the world than the covid policies have been.

News of the Times;
It sure has been hot this summer.

So hot that Walmart had to take down the entire Halloween candy display in August!


What's the difference between where you drive and where you park?

A lot!


An insurance agent approaches a cowboy, trying to sell him an accident policy.

The agent inquires, "Have you ever had an accident?"

"Never," the cowboy responds. "However, just recently a horse kicked in two of my ribs, and back a couple years ago a rattlesnake bit my ankle."

"Wouldn't you call these accidents?" says the puzzled agent.

"Nah," the cowboy replies. "They both did it on purpose!"


Two women were drinking coffee and talking.

One asked, "So why are you filing for divorce?"

The second one replied, "He treats me like a dog."

The first one asked, "Oh? Does he beat you or something?"

The other said, "Worse. He expects me to be loyal to him!"


What is Homer Simpson’s favorite animal?

A doh!

Quote of the Times;
“I do not defend Putin, but the truth is, I am close to civilians, what I say is that the Ukrainian army is bombing its own people”. - Journalist and war correspondent Anne - Laure Bonnell

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Conflict Between The West And Russia Is A Religious One by Emmet Sweeney

The war currently underway in Ukraine, which pits Ukraine as a proxy for the collective West against Russia, is primarily an ideological or religious one, with Russia representing what is left of Christian Europe, and “the West” representing a totalitarian ideology that abhors religion in general and Christianity in particular. This statement may sound strange, given the fact that some Westerners – though fewer every day – still see “the West,” (basically Europe and North America) as Christian, and Russia as Communist, or crypto-Communist. But this is no longer the case, and has not been for some considerable time. In fact, the thirty years that have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union, has seen a complete reversal of roles; the collective West is now a totalitarian and aggressively anti-religious power-block that seeks to export its anti-Christian and anti-human ideology onto the rest of the world. And Russia is loathed by the West’s ruling elite precisely because it has resisted this process and moreover has gone in the opposite direction: having once been an active proponent of “scientific materialism” and atheism, Russia has reverted to its Orthodox Christian roots and has rolled back the more pernicious policies and attitudes of the Soviet era.

In order to demonstrate the truth of this, we need to look at the history of Russia and its interaction with the West since the early 1990s.

By 1991, when the Soviet Union was officially abolished, it was clear that the West had won the Cold War. Russia itself, under its new president Boris Yeltsin, openly proclaimed the end of all hostilities. Russia’s satellites in Eastern Europe were permitted to go their own way, and autonomous republics within the Soviet Union were allowed to declare themselves independent countries. The old Soviet system of state ownership was officially abolished, and almost everything was privatised. The press and media in general were freed of all censorship and could now say whatever they wanted. Russia under Yeltsin reached out the hand of friendship to the West – a gesture that was not reciprocated and ultimately snubbed by the West.

The euphoria of 1991 soon gave way and the1990s turned out to be a catastrophic decade for Russia and her people. First and foremost, the policy of privatisation turned out to be disastrous. A law was passed which forbade foreigners from buying Russian utilities and industries; only Russians could do so. Unfortunately, nobody in Russia, hitherto a Communist country, had any money. However, certain groups within the country – mainly ethnic Jews – had important and wealthy connections abroad. These arranged to have funds sent into Russia for the purpose of purchasing the country’s state-owned industries. Desperate for any dollars and euros it could lay its hands on, the Yeltsin administration sold these industries for a tiny fraction of their true value. (Russia’s natural resources alone make it potentially one of the wealthiest countries on the planet). The buyers of said industries became the notorious “oligarchs,” who systematically plundered the country for almost ten years, in what has been described as the biggest act of looting in history. Rather than plow some of the profits back into the businesses, the oligarchs exported almost all of them, impoverishing both their employees and the country in general. The result was that large segments of the population began to experience severe hardship. Many came close to starvation and many died of hypothermia during the bitter Russian winters. Some state employees were paid in cabbages, and it is estimated that Russia suffered over five million excess deaths between 1991 and 2000. The majority of these were caused by simple diseases such as influenza, which developed into pneumonia for want of funds to buy an antibiotic. But deaths from all causes, including murder, suicide, alcoholism, and drug addiction, rocketed. Russia was a country falling apart, and the population began to plummet.

During this time, a Chechen independence movement, spurred on by funds from Saudi Arabia and (allegedly) the West, launched a violent campaign against the Russian authorities. A savage war followed, which claimed tens of thousands of lives, and eventually resulted in 1997 in Yeltsin’s recognition of a semi-independent Chechnya. Independence movements began to appear in other autnomous regions and it was clear that Russia itself stood on the verge of disintegration.

During all of this, the attitude of the West, or of those who control the West, was striking. Western media, by that time in the hands of a few mega-corporations, was almost gleeful in its reporting of Russia’s trauma. In their suffering, the Russian people became the butt of the West’s shadenfreude. And it should be borne in mind that it was precisely in the 1990s that American corporations commenced massive “outsourcing” of their industries to other, and less expensive, locations. Entire factories, together with their machinery and technology, were exported en masse, primarily to China. Almost nothing went to Russia. This in spite of the fact that China continued to be a Communist and indeed totalitarian country. Not even the massacre of Tiananmen Square (1989) and the subsequent brutal repression could halt the American plutocracy’s enthusiasm for exporting work and business. So Russia, which had held out the hand of friendship to the West, and had permitted the subjugated peoples to go free, continued to be treated as an enemy, and was effectively plundered by Western interests, whereas China, which did no such thing, was now treated as a favored trading and business partner. How to explain such an astonishing disparity?

There seems to be no logical explanation other than to assume an underlying cultural/religious antipathy towards Russia and her people on the part of a very large segment of the West’s ruling plutocracy. I suggest that this is the case, and it is Russia’s religion that is at the root of it.

During the Communist era, Christianity was suppressed in Russia and throughout the Soviet block. At its worst, under Lenin and Stalin, the Communist regime massacred millions of Christians. Victims were mainly Orthodox, but Christians of every denomination suffered. Even after the death of Stalin and into the 1980s religion continued to be persecuted. All children were required to attend lessons in atheism, during which Christianity and religious faith in general was mocked. By the end of Communism, the Orthodox Church was a small remnant of its former self under the Tsars, but that soon began to change. Hardship birthed a spiritual revival; by the mid-1990s the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as other branches of Christianity, began to experience noticeable growth. It was not however until the first decade of the twenty-first century, and the presidency of Vladimir Putin, that this movement became really significant.

Putin had occupied a senior position in the Yeltsin administration, and he was no doubt viewed by the oligarchs, at that time the real rulers of Russia, as a safe pair of hands who could be relied upon to continue the policies which had allowed them to plunder the country for almost a decade. He was appointed Prime Minister on 9th August 1999 and, just four months later, in December, acting President of Russia, following the unexpected resignation of Boris Yeltsin. A presidential election on 20th March 2000 was easily won by Putin with 53% of the votes. One reason for Putin’s popularity was that he was seen as a strong leader during the Second Chechen War, which commenced on 7th August 1999, just two days before his appointment as Prime Minister. The war ended in April 2000, with Chechnya again part of the Russian Federation, a victory which enhanced Putin’s reputation as a strongman, willing and able to restore stability and enforce the law.

Over the next five years, Putin showed that the ruling plutocrats were very much deceived had they imagined him to be under their control and part of their team. On the contrary, the new president set about breaking their power. The next decade witnessed a series of legal cases and trials which left some of the oligarchs in prison and others forced to pay substantial compensation. Others, arguably the most criminal, fled the country and their assets were confiscated. The breaking of the oligarchs’ power, together with that of the “Russian mafia” which enforced their corrupt rule, began to restore some form of normality.

In parallel with his economic reforms, Putin oversaw a revival of the Russian Orthodox faith. In an act heavy with symbolic import, he made a visit to the great Orthodox monastic settlement of Mount Athos in Greece in 2001, just one year into his presidency. Although this attempt had to be aborted owing to a storm which grounded his helicopter, and a second attempt in 2004 similarly shelved when he had to return to Russia to deal with the Beslan School siege, he finally made it to the Holy Mountain in 2005. There he established a bond with the monks that transformed their community and impacted the lives of ordinary Russians. A major program of church-construction commenced, and the numbers attending church began to grow. Putin made it clear that he regarded Orthodoxy as Russia’s national religion and the Church was accorded a favored legal position. And such symbolic gestures were backed by new legislation which began to transform Russian society: the country’s abortion laws, hitherto some of the most liberal in the world, were tightened. In October 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception up to 22 weeks if the pregnancy was the result of rape. The new law also made mandatory a waiting period of two to seven days before an abortion could be performed, to allow the woman to “reconsider her decision.”

During this period, the portrayal of Russia in the Western media moved from one of condescension to outright hostility. As early as 2005, scholars Ira Straus and Edward Lozansky remarked upon a pronounced negative coverage of Russia in the US media, contrasting negative media sentiment with largely positive sentiment of the American public and US government. As Russia displayed increasing signs of a Christian revival, so the media reporting in the West became increasingly hostile. Only rarely however did journalists openly attack Russia for its “Christianization”; normally, columnists, conscious of the fact that large numbers of people in the West continued to describe themselves as Christian, portrayed their anti-Russian commentary as a result of Russia’s “aggression,” “corruption,” or “lack of democracy.” All that however changed with the new abortion law of 2011. Now the attacks against Russia became explicitly ideological. The Russians, we were told, were oppressing women and turning their backs on “progress.”

It was not until 2013 however that the anti-Russian rhetoric went hyperbolic. In that year, the Russian parliament passed its so-called “Gay Propaganda” law. The bill, described as “Protecting Children from Information harmful to their Health and Development,” explicitly banned Gay Pride parades, as well as other forms of LGBT material, such as books and pamphlets, which attempted to normalize homosexuality and to influence children in their attitudes to homosexuality. In actual fact, since around 2006 many districts in Russia had been imposing their own local bans on such material, though these rules had no power outside their own jurisdiction. The bill, which was signed into law by Putin on June 30 2013, was extremely popular, and passed through the Russian Parliament unanimously, with just one abstention. But the impact upon the Western nomenklatura who form the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion, was immediate. Almost unanimously, Western media outlets now began to compare Putin with Adolf Hitler; he was a “thug,” a “fascist,” a “murderer.” Between bouts of seething rage, he became the butt of scathing satire. He was cast in the role of a caricature James Bond villain, routinely murdering and torturing those he held a grudge against. There is even evidence, admittedly somewhat circumstantial, that Western Intelligence bodies, such as the CIA and MI5, became actively involved in anti-Russian propaganda.

The effect of this deluge of demonization upon ordinary Westerners soon began to show: Whereas in 2006 only 1% of Americans listed Russia as “America’s worst enemy” by 2019 32% of Americans, including 44% of Democrat voters, shared this view. Only 28% of Republicans however agreed; a remarkable reversal of opinion. During the Cold War, Republican voters, traditionally the more religious and nationalistic element of the American political divide, viewed the Russians as the major threat; now it was the less or non-religious (and more pro-LGBT) Democrats who held this opinion.

But the Western elites did not confine its efforts to irate editorials in the London Times or the Washington Post: Economic sanctions now began to be discussed. There were immediate calls to boycott the Winter Olympics, held in February 2014 in Sochi, Russia. Whilst the call to boycott was generally resisted by athletes, many Western politicians refused to attend, and the Russophobic temperature in the Western media ratcheted up. And things were about to get much worse.

In 2010 Viktor Yanukovych, a native of Russian-speaking Donetsk, was elected President of Ukraine, defeating Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, in what was judged by international observers to be a free and fair election. In November 2013 Yanukovych delayed signing a pending European Union association agreement, on the grounds that his government wished to maintain economic ties with Russia, as well as with the European Union. Russia had in fact offered a more favorable loan bailout than the European Union was prepared to offer. This led to protests and the occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square, a series of events dubbed the “the Euromaidan” by those in favor of aligning Ukraine with the European Union. Whilst at times it looked as if the protests would fizzle out, there is no question that almost from the beginning there was a concerted effort on the part of Western politicians to keep them going. Beginning early in December, several politicians from Berlin and Brussels paid “morale-boosting” trips to the square, and these were followed, on December 15, by the arrival of American Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy. To the assembled crowds, McCain announced that “we are here to support your just cause.” The Russians, for their part, condemned America’s “crude meddling” in Ukraine’s affairs.

Victoria Nuland, at that time Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration, arrived in Ukraine shortly afterwards, and immediately set about fanning the flames of an already volatile situation. In speech after speech she promised the protestors and rioters that America was behind them. The result was the by early February 2014 Ukraine appeared to be on the brink of civil war; violent clashes between anti-government protestors and police left many dead and injured. Fearing for his life, on February 21 Yanukovych fled the capital, initially travelling to Crimea and ultimately to Russia. A new interim government, handpicked by Nuland, and virulently anti-Russian, was immediately installed in Kiev.

When considering the actions of America and the collective West at this time we have to remember that Ukraine was and is a deeply divided society. Half the country, roughly the north and west, regards itself as Ukrainian and is historically antagonistic towards Russia. The other half, predominantly the south and east, is pro-Russian and views itself as simultaneously Ukrainian and Russian. A glance at the electoral map of the country demonstrates this division in a most graphic way, for it was the Russian part of the country, the south and east, which overwhelmingly put Yanukovych into power. In supporting a violent overthrow of the latter, the American government quite deliberately threw its weight behind the anti-Russian half of the population. And it is impossible to believe that the political elite in Washington did not understand what they were doing. They had to have known that they were making civil strife – if not outright civil war – an absolute certainty.

The civil strife was not long in coming. As the anti-government mobs in Kiev were in the process of throwing out Yanukovych, major protests against the coup began to occur in the south and east. Crimea, which was overwhelmingly Russian and had only been transferred to the jurisdiction of Kiev in 1954 by Khruschev, held a referendum, resulting in a 97% vote for reunion with Russia. Putin, infuriated by American actions in Kiev, accepted the result of the vote, and formally announced the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation. Simultaneous with this, cities and towns throughout the south and east of the country, saw massive “anti-Maidan” protests, with many people calling for secession from Ukraine and union with Russia. The new Washington-appointed regime in Kiev reacted with force. Forty-seven pro-Russian demonstrators in Odessa were besieged in the city’s Trade Union building and burned to death by a Neo-Nazi mob. Seeing the way things were going, the ethnically-Russian provinces (“Oblasts”) of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence and prepared to defend themselves. This quickly escalated into full-scale war, and over the next two years or so around 14,000 people, mainly ethnic Russian civilians, died, as the Kiev government fought to return the two provinces to Ukraine.

The fighting in Lugansk and Donetsk (the “Donbas”) de-escalated after the signing of the so-called Minsk 2 Accord in 2015. This deal, brokered by Russia, the US and the UN, provided for a degree of autonomy for the two breakaway provinces, as well as recognition and respect for their Russian language and culture. The deal also called for the immediate halting of all military action.

Had the Minsk agreement been fully implemented, it is quite possible that all hostilities would have ended, but this was never the case. The new government in Kiev, which from May 2014 was headed by Petro Poroshenko, made no attempt whatsoever to abide by the Accord’s provisions. On the contrary, the Russian language, hitherto one of the official languages of Ukraine, was demoted, and Russian culture in general denigrated. Even worse, none of those who had committed murder in Odessa and elsewhere were brought to justice, and the Neo-Nazi militias responsible for these atrocities were actually integrated into the Ukrainian army. Worst of all, sporadic shelling of civilian targets in Lugansk and Donetsk continued – for the next six years.

To repeat; the collective “West” could not have been unaware of the dangers of its interference in the affairs of Ukraine. This was a deeply divided country; to intervene on behalf of one section of the country at the expense of the other could not fail to deepen divisions and ultimately cause the disintegration of the state. That the West took the side of the anti-Russian half of the population was entirely in harmony with the increasingly hysterical tone of anti-Russian rhetoric in the Western media in the years leading up to the Maidan Revolution. And we can take with a pinch of salt the idea that Nuland and the Obama Adminstration was concerned with “corruption” in the Yanukovych regime: America is and always has been on very friendly terms with governments far more corrupt, violent and totalitarian than that of Yanukovych.

I would suggest that the real reason, or certainly an extremely important though unspoken reason, for Nuland’s mission was that Yanukovych’s pivot towards Russia was seen by the “woke” establishment in Washington as a sign that Ukraine would follow Russia into adopting an increasingly Christian-friendly social culture; one that the “liberals” and “progressives” in Washington despised. We should note too that one of Poroshenko’s first actions as President of Ukraine was to provide openings for George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and to simultaneously support the establishment of LGBT input into the educational system. Gay “Pride” parades became a regular feature of life in Kiev where, though distinctly unpopular with the great majority of the population, they received massive support and protection from the security forces.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.