"In the United States Senate, one of the things I observed in the early days - and it's still used - and that is that you take someone's argument and then you misrepresent it and misstate and disagree with it. And it's very effective. I've done it myself a number of times. But eventually, eventually people catch on." -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington

Bidgear ad




Big Pharma manufacturers of the COVID -19 mRNA "vaccines" have lost their shield from product liability, after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the mRNA shots are NOT VACCINES, but rather "Treatments."

The 9th Circuit said it's not a vaccine if the claim isn't to "PREVENT THE SPREAD" of a disease.

COVID shots were claimed to "reduce symptoms" and prevent hospitalization.  Those claims make it a TREATMENT.

The case involved the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) mandating their people get the "vaccine."

But the 9th circuit, in a very detailed and complex ruling said the US District Court ERRED because this particular "vaccine" did not "prevent the spread of disease."   Here is the pertinent portion of the 9th Circuit ruling:

Posted on:

The race to determine who will be Donald Trump’s running mate this November took a major step forward last week with the acceleration of vetting multiple potential candidates, but political insiders with deep knowledge of presidential campaigns say there is one possible name on the former president’s shortlist Democrats “fear” the most.

Trump’s campaign recently entered the next phase of the running mate search by requesting documents from several prospective contenders, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who has grown to be a staunch ally of the former president since running against him in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

“Rubio is a familiar face who has become one of the strongest voices in the Senate for the America First agenda, is excellent on TV, and can blast Biden effectively for his failed policies,” one top GOP strategist told Fox News Digital. 

Posted on:

A former Atlanta city attorney who was sentenced to seven years in prison over a massive $15 million pandemic loan fraud donated to Trump prosecutor Fani Willis’s campaign after applying for the government handouts, records show.

Shelitha Robertson, 62, used some of her ill-gotten windfall for lavish purchases — including a massive 10-carat diamond ring and a Rolls Royce, according to federal prosecutors.

But, she also donated $1,000 to Willis’s Democratic primary election campaign around the time she got the massive payouts from the Paycheck Protection Program, Georgia campaign filings show.

Posted on:

Turkey to join BRICS! It's official, Turkey is moving away from the EU and will move closer to BRICS, China, and Russia. Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952 and this is the first time we've seen a NATO member shift away from the US and EU and move closer to BRICS. What does this mean for the future of Europe and geopolitics around the world? Let's break it down!

Posted on:

Representative Thomas Massie has stepped forward with a proposition that could potentially halt Steve Bannon’s impending imprisonment.

His plan involves urging Speaker Mike Johnson to rescind the congressional subpoena issued against Bannon and to formally disavow what he refers to as the “J6 witch hunt.”

This development follows a recent decision by a Washington, D.C. judge to deny Bannon’s appeal, mandating him to surrender to prison by July 1.

The decision, handed down by United States District Court Judge Carl Nichols, rejected Bannon’s plea to stay his sentence while he prepares to take his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bannon’s conviction was based on his noncompliance with a subpoena from the sham House committee investigating the events of January 6, an act he defended by citing President Trump’s assertion of executive privilege.

Posted on:

Dave Portnoy: All right. I’m at Saratoga Belmont Day. Looking spectacular, per usual shoes, bang. But this is about Caitlin Clark being left off the Olympic team. How dumb are these women? How dumb? I don’t know who’s making the decision, women’s Olympic Committee, whatever it is. I don’t care if you don’t think Caitlin Clark talent-wise belongs on this team, even though she does put up 37 to 13, like the most points in the history of the league for a rookie.

None of it matters. These women, and I love women, I’m a pro-woman-guy, women-guy. They complain and they cry about equal rights, equal wages, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey, dummies, for the first time in the history of basketball, you have arguably a player who is the most popular player in the world. You could argue right now, Caitlin Clark is the most talked about, discussed, most popular, most puts asses in the seats, single basketball player in the world. You could argue that. Yeah, you could say maybe LeBron, Luca, whatever you want, but you can argue it. And you leave her off the Olympic team. It’s not only a showcase for her, it’s for the sport and the other WNBA players who are on this team.

How dumb, how brain dead, how idiotic do the people running this thing have to be? It was one thing after another with her. The business part of my brain is like, these people, and maybe it’s guy, whoever it is, I don’t ever want to hear you complain about flying commercial or not getting salaries or this, that. You’re too dumb. You’re too dumb. You have a cash cow. This can bring the Olympic basketball, women’s basketball, be like the number one thing people watch with Caitlin Clark. As it is, I’d rather watch grass grow. I’d rather watch paint dry. I’d rather watch dirt just be moved around because Caitlin Clark is not on the team. If she’s there, it’s appointment TV. You people, whoever did this, honestly, hey, take your brain, put it in a museum, and study it for how dumb you are.

Posted on:

The sinister prevention of Scott Ritter travelling to speak and broadcast from Russia this week by United States authorities is a sure sign that the Western imperialist warmongers are afraid of the truth.

Indeed, there is a dark shadow cast on their pretensions of “democracy and freedom” – ironically in a week that supposedly commemorates the D-Day landings and the historic fight against fascism.

The former U.S. Marine and United Nations weapons inspector has gained worldwide respect as an independent political commentator and analyst. Ritter has become a powerful critic of the United States and NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine. He has staunchly appealed for dialogue and diplomacy, warning that the reckless provocations by Washington and its allies towards Russia are driving the world to a nuclear conflagration.

Posted on:

The Israeli military used a US-built pier, which has been purportedly installed to transfer aid to the Gaza Strip, to facilitate an earlier massacre against a refugee camp located in the central part of the coastal sliver, a report says.

Israeli forces carried out the massacre against the Nuseirat refugee camp on Saturday, killing hundreds of Palestinians before they retrieved four Israeli captives.

According to The Cradle online news magazine, “They (the troops) were then flown out of Gaza via the US-built pier, which had been reinstalled on the coast on Friday after undergoing tens of millions in repairs.”

At least 210 Palestinians were killed and more than 400 others injured when the Israeli military carried out dozens of airstrikes against the besieged territory as means of enabling the captives’ retrieval.

Posted on:

The controversial business practice known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) could soon see its legal challenges take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

According to Axios, the case that could spark Supreme Court action was filed by the same group that successfully saw the practice of affirmative action overturned by the court last year.

The current case saw an appeals court ultimately rule that a venture capital firm had to shut down its grant program that was exclusively for black women.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) filed a lawsuit against Fearless Fund in 2023, arguing that the black-only and women-only grant program was discriminatory. The group initially tried to have the program halted while the case played out in the courts, but a district judge ruled in favor of the company and allowed the program to continue.

Then, on Monday, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned the district judge’s ruling, thus ordering Fearless Fund to cease its grant program. The two judges in the majority were appointed by former President Donald Trump, while the lone dissenter was an Obama appointee.

The appeals court’s ruling noted that the challenge by AAER “is likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims that the program is a violation of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. As a result of this ruling, there is now a “circuit split” on the matter, increasing the likelihood that the subsequent challenge by Fearless Fund will ultimately lead to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Posted on:

The Supreme Court's 2023 term is winding down with several of the largest and most impactful cases yet to be decided before the justices depart at the end of the month for their annual recess.

Why it matters: In the middle of a fraught election season where the court's credibility has been challenged, the Supreme Court has yet to issue decisions in cases touching on former President Trump's wide-ranging claim to immunity from prosecution, abortion rights, the power of the executive branch and gun rights.

Presidential immunity

Perhaps the largest outstanding question before the Supreme Court is deciding whether Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed while in office.

  • The decision will come as Trump's two federal cases — on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents after he left office — hang in the balance.
  • The court appeared poised to grant Trump at least a partial victory during oral arguments in April.
Posted on:

One of Joe Biden’s biggest supporters appears to be throwing up his hands in frustration after declaring that a recent executive order issued last week was far too little and way too late to help the president win a second term.

HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher said during his Friday program that Biden’s executive order on immigration won’t really boost his reelection chances and is doomed to failure.

Biden issued an executive order to halt new asylum requests once the number of migrants crossing into the U.S. hits an average of 2,500 per day over a week. The order comes after months of Biden stating he could not intervene in the immigration crisis. Maher commented on his show that while immigration is a critical issue for Biden’s reelection, this executive order is unlikely to satisfy any party involved.

Posted on:

I think that it was the great Miranda Devine, she of the “laptop from hell” fame, who first called the world’s attention to the latest wrinkle in the long-running “Get Trump” extravaganza in New York.  Anyway, I first heard about it from her post on X Friday. “If this is legit,” she wrote, commenting on a letter purportedly from Acting Justice Juan Merchan to Donald Trump’s Counsel and the Manhattan DA’s office,  “it should wipe out Trump’s conviction.”

Eh, what?

At issue was someone who (again, purportedly) posted on the Court’s public Facebook page a message from one “Michael Anderson,”  a self-described “professional shitposter,” who claimed to have inside information that Trump was about to be convicted. “My cousin is a juror and says Trump is getting convicted. Thank you folks for all your hard work!” The comment, Merchan wrote, was posted on May 29, a day before Trump’s guilty verdict rolled off the tongues of Merchan’s jury.

For a brief moment, the internet was ablaze with speculative comment, elated or anguished depending on the ideological coloration of the poster.  If it turned out that a juror had disobeyed his orders and spilled the beans about the verdict to someone who then posted the bulletin on Facebook, would that constitute grounds for a mistrial?  After all, “prejudice to the defendant” is one of the stipulated grounds for a mistrial. CPL § 280.10 of the statute says, in part, that “the court must declare a mistrial”   “upon motion of the defendant, when there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings, or conduct inside or outside the courtroom, which is prejudicial to the defendant and deprives him of a fair trial.”

Is that what we have here?  It’s hard to say.  The original Facebook post was removed.  As far as I know, the juror in question has not been identified—and that’s assuming that a juror did inform “Michael Anderson” of the verdict. Did the post result in “substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s case?”

Posted on: