Jon Letendre

But now, anyone who thinks elections are in any way vulnerable are gullible rubes with no respect for reason or standards of evidence, white supremacist conspiracy theorists and a danger to our democracy.

Me: "In 2017 (and '18 and '19) elections couldn't be trusted, they were, in effect, hackable." I am using hackable as a synonym of vulnerable, not as unauthorized access to a computer system. All of you believe-anything-anti-Trump mainstream normies said that the 2016 election was illegitimate as it had suffered "Russian collusion," an idea that was never supported in any grounded facts, was always stupid, has since been proven false and was dishonestly and feverishly pumped for years by the same mainstream voices you blindly trust to this day.

Note also that Fox is only worth about $17 billion, market capitalization. Pfizer alone is worth about $220 billion. The small clique of Wall Street institutions that own 80% and 70% of those two companies would view even the total destruction of Fox as a very net positive business decision if it ended mainstream media criticism of their pharma companies which together are worth orders of magnitude more than Fox is worth. We are expected to believe in the classical economic paradigm that companies always promote their own interests and behave according to market principles. But that paradigm obviously breaks down when all of them are vast-majority owned by the same institutional owners. Under this condition rational self interest will lead those owners to see past the atomic interests of individual companies and to press for those outcomes which promote their best net interest. I am not prepared to say that RFK Jr's thesis is the only or even best explanation for Tucker's firing, just that its plausibility is well grounded in facts, no matter what the clingers to braindead mainstream narratives say. RFK Jr, April 24, 2023: Fox fires @TuckerCarlson five days after he crosses the red line by acknowledging that the TV networks pushed a deadly and ineffective vaccine to please their Pharma advertisers. Carlson’s breathtakingly courageous April 19 monologue broke TV’s two biggest rules: Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless. For many years, Tucker has had the nation's biggest audience averaging 3.5 million — 10 times the size of CNN. Fox just demonstrated the terrifying power of Big Pharma.

You and your grand narratives. Nevermind the Wall Street institutions that own 80% of Fox and similar of big pharma. The family that owns under 20% of the company just didn't like Tucker anymore. The "fact is" that's the "easiest explanation." lol

In 2017 (and '18 and '19) elections couldn't be trusted, they were, in effect, hackable. Trump was illegitimate due to "collusion with the Russians!" That idea was always stupid but notice that the usual suspects pretended to believe it with all their heart and have fastidiously stopped talking about it ever since it was proven not only false but also fabricated by Hillary and elements of the intelligence services. In 2021 (and '22 and '23) elections are secure and only conspiracy theorists and white supremacists would disagree and "Respect our Democracy!"

Doug you seem unwilling to contemplate that our overlords intentionally overstated covid deaths as has been obvious to many of us from the start. I can't help you with that. Lethal and worthless are RFK Jr's words, not mine. Suffice to say I understand that you still trust the establishment media (who rely upon big pharma advertising and are controlling-interest owned by the same very small group of Wall Street elites who control big pharma*.) You still blindly trust them about this and about so much more and you can cite their many insistences that the unvacc'ed are dying more and I can cite others saying it's not so ( https://brownstone.org is doing a good job.) Forgive me if I don't engage you further in "debate." I've seen how you operate over many years. You play games and make no attempt at genuine engagement with what the other side presents. Arguing with normie simpletons is like trying to play chess with a pigeon, it won't work because he's just going to knock over all the pieces and strut around like he won. *Both Fox and Pfizer are well over 50% owned by a small clique of Wall Street institutions. Just Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street together own at least a third of FOX and a quarter of PFE. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FOXA/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PFE/holders

RFK Jr: Fox fires @TuckerCarlson five days after he crosses the red line by acknowledging that the TV networks pushed a deadly and ineffective vaccine to please their Pharma advertisers. Carlson’s breathtakingly courageous April 19 monologue broke TV’s two biggest rules: Tucker told the truth about how greedy Pharma advertisers controlled TV news content and he lambasted obsequious newscasters for promoting jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless. For many years, Tucker has had the nation's biggest audience averaging 3.5 million — 10 times the size of CNN. Fox just demonstrated the terrifying power of Big Pharma. Last edited11:20 AM · Apr 24, 2023 · 12M Views

People everywhere are coming to see that smear as nothing more than an evasion aid for information that upsets one's worldview, information the implications of which one is not comfortable facing. For example, "covid hospitalizations" and "covid deaths" overcounting has been an easily confirmable fact since the beginning of the Scamdemic. But normie simpletons refused to look at the information and relied instead on their favorite smear. The truth is that very few people, including self-identifying Objectivists, are willing to think for themselves. Too often people will reject objective evidence they don't like with smears of the messenger and wait until "respectable outlets" (or Mr. Brook) tell them what to think.

During a speech, this weekend at Hillsdale College, Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke about the PATRIOT Act and the 2001 Anthrax attacks: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/04/11/robert_f_kennedy_jr_suggests_2001_anthrax_attack_was_done_by_cia_to_pass_the_patriot_act.html#!

The shame is that while we argue about the appropriate age for schools to introduce kids to strap-ons and while we lament about books on systemic racism being taken away along with the strap-on instructionals, "half of U.S. adults can’t read a book written at the 8th-grade level." https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-literacy-rate/ Schools should be about educational basics. Parents who can't fathom their kids not knowing about strap-ons can give their kids books about strap-ons. Parents who can't fathom their kids not knowing that the world is stacked against them can give their kids books that teach them the world is stacked against them. Maybe if all of that were banned in schools and there was nothing left but real education, then the kids might turn out able to read at all.

Sure. That ninth grade example was just one example of material (conveniently for decpetive school boards) kept out of the record of board meetings. The earlier example I posted: “Every one of the kids in this book partakes in taking drugs, drinking alcohol, buying liquor with a fake ID, watching porn, having sex, and bullying other kids." The audiobook is available at Spring Hill Elementary library. Oodles of examples like this exist around the country for anyone willing to research it a bit. But not if you close your eyes and chalk it all up to paranoid and pushy Christians. By this logic there is no problem with public schools indoctrinating kids with marxist ideology, or anything else whatsoever, starting at any age -- and trying to stop it is misguided since parents can simply "give them tools." If it is reasonable to say that nothing being taught at school is a problem since parents can give their kids tools, then is it also reasonable to say that the absence of any book from their school is no problem since parents can go on Amazon or to a municipal library?

I don't make that mistake, of course it's real. And non-religious-based objections to the left's agenda of corrupting children at younger and younger ages is also real. People from all walks of life and all ideological persuasions are noticing it and objecting to it.

"During the November 16, 2021, regular school board meeting, Kara Floyd, Chair of Moms for Liberty-Hernando Chapter, addressed the board with concerns over inappropriate content contained in books on the shelves of our school libraries. Floyd read a passage from a book, but the passage she read aloud was redacted for “language and content” from the school board’s streaming video meeting. "Later in the meeting, Wendy Porter of Spring Hill also read from “Looking for Alaska,” a book found at Fox Chapel Middle School that Chairman Gus Guadagnino later called “quite shocking.” Superintendent John Stratton’s final words on the matter were that the material was “alarming.” "Floyd mentioned two books by Alex Gino, and “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” (2007) by Sherman Alexie. According to her website, Gino is an “Award-winning author of queer and progressive middle-grade fiction.” Alexie’s book won a National Book Award for Young People’s Literature. "Floyd stated that Alexie’s book is currently on the shelf at Spring Hill Elementary, though at the conclusion of their comments, School District Attorney Dennis Alfonso stated that all of the books in question have been removed from shelves in each school’s library. "However, a search of Spring Hill Elementary’s library catalog shows that “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” is available as of Nov. 27, 2021." https://www.hernandosun.com/2021/11/27/content-of-school-library-books-too-inappropriate-for-official-video-of-public-meeting/ This has been going on for years. They say don't worry, they've been removed, then they put them back. They deny. They lie. They redact board meeting notes and videos. They chalk it all up to prudish christian minorities hellbent on "book bans." The inevitable backlash is going to be understandably brutal.

“I’m going to read a passage of a book that’s floating around in your schools that has been banned from many other schools,” said Jacob Engels, the speaker who was removed, according to Orange Observer. “As a member of the LGBT community, the fact that this is floating around for children as young as ninth grade is concerning.” Engels read a scene from the book that described sexual acts using strap-on devices before Jacobs interjected. “Sir,” she said. “Mr. Engels, you’re out of order. . . . Remove him from the chambers.” https://districtadministration.com/speaker-kicked-out-of-florida-school-board-meeting-for-reading-from-sexually-explicit-school-library-book/ Got that? Grounds for removal from a public meeting, and conveniently, keeping it out of evidence and public debate. But perfectly fine for kids.

too sexually explicit.

And every corporation gets its own government, too? I have never tried to dismantle a deeply entrenched corporate entity of political pull and special privilege. I imagine a variety of unorthodox tactics are required. I will support use of all of them.

This website's home page asserts, among other things, that: In the universe, each person's independence is respected by all It is hardly a big deal and I'm sure everyone understands what is intended, but it has always bothered me a little.

Keeping books out of elementary schools which are not allowed to be read aloud into evidence at school board meetings for being too sexually explicit is not "book bans." Try to be objective.

Disney exercised political pull and corrupted Florida's politicians in the sixties in order to obtain special status and its own government. This was crony-statism as its worst. DeSantis is to be commended for his efforts at reversing this Cuffy Meigs abomination.

And you have been citing CATO's 2020 numbers? I suppose that makes sense. Continued massive low wage immigration and then lockdowns put untold tens of millions of Americans on welfare, bringing the native-born reliance on welfare closer to the immigrant figures. With every passing year millions more voters become dependent for their very existence on handouts. Does this trend make it easier, harder or impossible to ever eliminate these programs? https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/public-welfare-expenditures https://usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending_analysis

That would explain it. The liberal progressive pro-immigration non-hypocritical paradise where they deal with immigrants by immediately shipping them off to a military base until suitable environs can be identified.

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs. Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare. No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives. https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

The driver at 0:22 - 0:23

Haha, yeah lots of good Greenspan turned out to do. Paul is right -- we have to go at least all the way back to 1913 and dismantle the privately owned central bank cartel known deceptively as the the Fed (listen free: https://bookaudiobooks.com/the-creature-from-jekyll-island-audiobook/ There is simply no such thing as the prudent or pro-capitalist management of a fake money cartel.

Well more than half of immigrants take welfare, at least double the native-born rate.