I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER ... this is the end-game for CRT. I wish some parent(s) had the backbone to revisit this with their school boards ...
Monday, June 28, 2021
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
BLACK LIKE ME NOT BLACK ENOUGH
I GUESS NOT BLACK ENOUGH ... THIS IS CHILD ABUSE BY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM!
Opening Monologue: 'Critical Race Theory' is Racist! Resist!
The following column originally aired on "The Michael Savage Show" podcast, available for download on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever podcasts are heard.
As you would expect under this radical left-wing president, things are getting so bad and they're only going to get much worse before the people finally rise up and wise up to what he's doing to this country. It's not so much "Sleepy Joe" or, as I call him, "The Hologram in the Basement," it's who is around him.
They're the worst people in the history of America.
Now, let me begin with something that hits very close to people with children in school, especially people who are of the Caucasian race -- who are being picked on, who are being shamed, who are being basically driven to suicide. Children will commit suicide unless these people are stopped.
[One headline reads] "Mother Sues School After Her Biracial Son Refused To Confess His White Dominance" to psychopaths who have taken over the school systems, targeting white children and they're destroying their minds and their self-respect.
If it was my kid, I'd do whatever is necessary, but I would not let my child be subjected to this trash, rubbish, racist garbage called "Critical Race Theory."
There is no such thing as "Critical Race Theory." It was created by a psychopath who hates white people. This poor child is paying the price for refusing to confess his white dominance as a result of the failing grade.
Her son may not get the chance to graduate. The school is called Democracy Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada, and they forced Gabriel Clark's son, William, to take a mandatory course entitled "Sociology of Change." The boy, William, refused to label himself as privileged because he has mixed race.
According to the article in The Post Millennial, it states this, "In the class, William, along with all the students, was asked to publicly reveal his race, gender, religious and sexual identities."
This is child abuse.
And then, they wanted him to attach derogatory labels to those identities. Students would then be asked to, "undo and unlearn their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that stem from oppression."
The profile goes on to say, "William is the only student in the classroom that appears to be white. He has light skin and green eyes. He is, in fact, mixed race. His mother, Gabriel, filed a lawsuit against the so-called high school after they allegedly threatened to keep his son from graduating."
According to lawsuit, the parents are seeking monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages for the harm done to William Clark's future academic and professional prospects and for the defendants' deliberate and protracted harassment, emotional abuse, and violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.
I suggest if you and your children are being subjected to this kind of child abuse and racism, you get a copy of that lawsuit and you sue your school.
This has to stop.
This is all going on because Biden has become the Bully-in-Chief and they feel they can get away with any kind of racism against whites.
So, you could laugh at this and say, "It doesn't really affect [me] because it's just somebody else's child."
You can put your head in the sand if you want, but I'm warning you, I see the truth and I don't wait.
A National Radio Hall of Fame recipient, Savage has hosted his radio show for more than 25 years and launched The Savage Nation Podcast in January of 2019 with one of the most successful podcast debuts. A prolific New York Times best-selling author, Dr. Savage’s latest book is "Our Fight for America: The War Continues." To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© SAVAGE ENTERPRISES,LLC, 2021 All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, June 20, 2021
TWO BLIND PPL IN A CACUS PARK ... ONE PRICK TO ANOTHER
https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-maher-explodes-nothing-is-ever-good-enough-for-leftists-this-is-why-people-hate-democrats?itm_source=parsely-api&utm_campaign=daily_shapiro&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=news
Saturday, June 19, 2021
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Monday, June 14, 2021
GOOD MOURNING AMERICA ...
AND SO THE NEXT CHAPTER BEGINS WITH O'BIDEN, HIS VICE PRESIDENT AND ADMINISTRATION PREVIEWING THE FUTURE OF AMERICA ...
Though we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within.
Neither an epic victory over Communism nor an extended upswing of the business cycle can buoy our public spirit. The Cold War and New Deal struggles are plainly over, but we are of no mind to bask in their successes. The America of today feels worse, in its fundamentals, than the one many of us remember from youth, a society presided over by those of supposedly lesser consciousness. Wherever we look, from L.A. to D.C., from Oklahoma City to Sun City, we see paths to a foreboding future. We yearn for civic character but satisfy ourselves with symbolic gestures and celebrity circuses. We perceive no greatness in our leaders, a new meanness in ourselves. Small wonder that each new election brings a new jolt, its aftermath a new disappointment.
Not long ago, America was more than the sum of its parts. Now, it is less. Around World War II, we were proud as a people but modest as individuals. Fewer than two people in ten said yes when asked, Are you a very important person? Today, more than six in ten say yes. Where we once thought ourselves collectively strong, we now regard ourselves as individually entitled.
Yet even while we exalt our own personal growth, we realize that millions of self-actualized persons don't add up to an actualized society. Popular trust in virtually every American institution—from businesses and governments to churches and newspapers—keeps falling to new lows. Public debts soar, the middle class shrinks, welfare dependencies deepen, and cultural arguments worsen by the year. We now have the
highest incarceration rate and the lowest eligible-voter participation rate of any major democracy. Statistics inform us that many adverse trends (crime, divorce, abortion, scholastic aptitudes) may have bottomed out, but we're not reassured.
Optimism still attaches to self, but no longer to family or community. Most Americans express more hope for their own prospects than for their children's—or the nation's. Parents widely fear that the American Dream, which was there (solidly) for their parents and still there (barely) for them, will not be there for their kids. Young householders are reaching their midthirties never having known a time when America seemed to be on the right track. Middle-aged people look at their thin savings accounts and slim-to-none pensions, scoff at an illusory Social Security trust fund, and try not to dwell on what a burden their old age could become. Seniors separate into their own Leisure World, recoiling at the lost virtue of youth while trying not to think about the future.
We perceive our civic challenge as some vast, insoluble Rubik's Cube. Behind each problem lies another problem that must be solved first, and behind that lies yet another, and another, ad infinitum. To fix crime we have to fix the family, but before we do that we have to fix welfare, and that means fixing our budget, and that means fixing our civic spirit, but we can't do that without fixing moral standards, and that means fixing schools and churches, and that means fixing the inner cities, and that's impossible unless we fix crime. There's no fulcrum on which to rest a policy lever. People of all ages sense that something huge will have to sweep across America before the gloom can be lifted—but that's an awareness we suppress. As a nation, we're in deep denial.
While we grope for answers, we wonder if analysis may be crowding out our intuition. Like the anxious patient who takes seventeen kinds of medicine while poring over his own CAT scan, we find it hard to stop and ask, What is the underlying malady really about? How can we best bring the primal forces of nature to our assistance? Isn't there a choice lying somewhere between total control and total despair? Deep down, beneath the tangle of trend lines, we suspect that our history or biology or very humanity must have something simple and important to say to us. But we don't know what it is. If we once did know, we have since forgotten.
Wherever we're headed, America is evolving in ways most of us don't like or understand. Individually focused yet collectively adrift, we wonder if we're heading toward a waterfall.
Are we?
So begins the opening page from the ... "The Fourth Turning ... A American Prophecy" ... Biden and Harris are merely meme's on the World Stage ...
The metaphoric host cell is the American Society, Culture and underlying foundation of values upon which the path to the future finds its sustenance.
Monday, June 7, 2021
Sunday, June 6, 2021
THE VALUE OF A YALE EDUCATION ... HAS CHANGED!
Yale lecturer: 'I had fantasies of unloading a revolver' into 'any White person that got in my way' - Washington Times
A New York psychiatrist recently revealed during a public lecture at Yale University that she had cut all her White friends out of her life and even had “fantasies” about murdering random White people.
On April 6, Dr. Aruna Khilanani gave a lecture at the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center titled, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” in which she said White people are “out of their minds” and “sound demented” when addressing issues such as race, journalist Katie Herzog reported on Bari Weiss’ Substack blog.
“This is the cost of talking to White people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry,” Dr. Khilanani said, according to an audio recording of the talk obtained by Ms. Herzog. “There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. Around five years ago, I took some actions. I systematically White-ghosted most of my White friends. … I have less than 1% left. It was also a public service.
“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a [expletive] favor,” she said in the recording.
Dr. Khilanani on Friday defended her comments during an interview with Ms. Herzog, saying she was getting “in touch” with her “aggressive feelings.”
“Before I gave the talk, I said, I want you to observe your thoughts and feelings as I talk,” she said. “I said, there’s a difference between a thought, a fantasy, and an action. Now, my reflection on my own rage was actually that I was feeling impotent. So that’s where I was going with that. And kind of normalizing feelings of hatred. This is stuff that exists and I need to dive deep within myself to reflect on how it is that I got here. So there is a reality here, like did I actually cut White people out of my life? Absolutely.”
Dr. Khilanani said she got rid of her White friends because she was tired of having the same conversations with them “on repeat.”
“People getting defensive, needing to argue, being unable to take in what I’m saying,” she said. “I think my favorite responses were, ‘Well, you’re really sensitive. You’re overreacting.’ Focusing on my feelings.”
Dr. Khilanani said the idea that therapists can be neutral was “a part of the racist aspect of psychoanalysis” and that she is just as blunt with her patients about race issues.
“I’m not the stereotype of the psychoanalyst where I’m withholding or won’t say anything or will just be there as a sounding board because that sounds really [expletive] cold and empty. That sounds awful,” she said.
Ms. Herzog reported that while Dr. Khilanani‘s speech was open to the public, Yalereleased the video only internally and issued a disclaimer for its “profanity and imagery for violence.”
HUMPTY-DUMPTY HAD A GREAT FALL ... OFF THE GREAT WALL
Chinese communists too late to save regime with new birth policy
Without religion, people have few reasons to have the children who are needed to maintain society
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The Chinese Communist Party recently announced that it will now allow each family to have three children.
That’s interesting for a bunch of reasons. The rulers of China have allowed families to have two children for 20 years, yet the fertility rate in China — the average number of children each Chinese woman has given birth to — has been stuck between 1.6 and 1.7 since 1996. In other words, in the wake of the disastrous one child policy, Chinese families aren’t even having the two children they’re allowed to have.
For context, the replacement rate — the fertility rate that allows a society to stay at its current population level — is 2.1. Below that, population shrinks; above it, population grows.
It was an interesting acknowledgment by the communists in China that the future belongs to those who are there, who exist. People are, apparently, a minimum necessity to be a superpower.
Happily, the communists are too late to save their regime. The terrible reality for them is that the Chinese people will grow old before they grow rich.
The other terrible reality — and larger lesson for everyone — is that once people stop having children, it is difficult for any government to restart the process.
Those of us in the West are familiar with the problem. In the European Union, birth rates are alarmingly low. The overall fertility rate in the EU is 1.5. Some nations — Italy and Spain with fertility rates of 1.3 — are not more than a generation or two from being unable to recover, absent an emphatic and immediate religious resurgence. France is proud that it is leading the pack in Europe with a fertility rate of 1.9.
In the United States, the fertility rate is 1.7, the lowest ever.
Why have people in the “developed” world stopped having children? The obvious and least-mentioned answer is that having children is, for most, a sacrifice and a commitment to a world not yet seen. It is an act of a faith, and consequently, it is performed most frequently by people who have faith.
It is no accident that fertility rates are well above replacement level in nations characterized by strong religious sentiments such as Nigeria (5.2), Uganda (4.6) and Afghanistan (4.5).
Fertility rates fall along with religious belief. Why shouldn’t they? Having children is not an economically savvy proposition, and the act of procreation is usually tangled up with crazy notions of participating in the creation — along with God — of another human. Once all that religious sentimentality is shorn away, it turns out that there are limited reasons to have children.
The United States is no exception. The current fertility rate of 1.7 compares to 2.54 in 1970. Now compare religious belief. In 1970, just 3% Americans said they had no religious affiliation. Last year, 23% said they had no religious affiliation, making them, ironically, the nation’s second largest religious group.
Obviously in the case of the communists, they hate religion, so they doom themselves almost from the outset.
In the West, the ruling philosophy for the last two centuries has been utilitarianism — a cousin of communism — accelerated by the Enlightenment. Both have left us with diminished religious beliefs and a hyper-rational approach towards society (now most clearly seen in the manic pursuit of “data” to inform every decision).
Utilitarianism has failed. It has led to societies that cannot produce the essential building block of civilization — actual humans. In a hyper-rational world, everyone concludes that having children makes no economic sense.
Some think that government cash is the answer. If more cash were the answer, surely the richest societies in the history of the planet would not be suffering from a dearth of children.
It appears that belief in God, pretty much any God, is better than belief in one’s own intellectual capacity to manage the world.
The good news is that, like many things in nature, it is a self-correcting problem. Those societies and peoples that can’t or won’t reproduce — like the Communist Chinese or some in the West — will simply fade into history.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is the president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to President Trump and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House.
THE WEARING OF A MASK USED TO MEAN A ROBBERY WAS IN PROGRESS
Conflict of interest? Fauci’s wife runs bioethics department at NIH
As Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH, Fauci’s wife, Dr. Christine Grady, is responsible for guiding the ‘ethics’ of the government organization’s work. She is also Head of the Section on Human Subjects Research. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a division of the NIH.
BETHESDA, Maryland, June 4 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Anthony Fauci’s wife, Dr. Christine Grady, heads the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and has quietly become a key figure in medical research and medical ethics in America.
Christine Grady married Dr. Anthony Fauci in 1985, and together they worked on the AIDS crisis during the 1980s. Grady, 68, is a nurse-bioethicist and a senior investigator who is now Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH, and also Head of the Section on Human Subjects Research.
Having moved to the NIH clinical center in 1983, Grady also worked with NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), although never as part of that division, which her husband runs.
In addition to her work at the NIH, Grady is also a senior research fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and an elected fellow of the Hastings Center and the American Academy of Nursing.
She received the NIH director’s award four times between 1999 and 2017. Along with being a part of numerous other task forces, Grady acted as a member of President Barack Obama’s Presidential Commission for study of bioethical issues from 2010-2017.
Already in 1997, Grady’s role in the bioethics department involved her participation in the Institutional Review Board of clinical protocols, informing and advising health officials in the establishment of policy, particularly members of the NIH. The department itself was founded in 1996, and Grady made its head in 2012, having been deputy director since 1996.
Meanwhile, Fauci was appointed as Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984, one year after Grady joined the NIH, and one year before they married.
Grady’s NIH and Fauci’s NIAID
NIAID “conducts and supports basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.” Indeed, among the 27 comprising institutes and centers of the NIH, NIAID has the “unique mandate” to “respond to emerging public health threats.”
In its research and operation, the NIAID is guided by the ethics of the NIH. This means essentially that Grady’s decisions on ethics are intimately linked to, and inform her husband’s decisions on vaccine research and development. The NIAID participated in the development of COVID-19 vaccines (namely the Moderna jab), and the trialing of the vaccines.
One of the most controversial projects in which NIH has been involved has been the creation of “humanized mice,” transplanting into mice tissue from aborted babies.
And now, as Elle gushingly reported, Grady is “spearheading research into the ethics of America's COVID-19 response.”
However, despite the NIH developing and giving the ethical green light to coronavirus injections – particularly Moderna’s, which was made with help by NIAID scientists – the number of deaths and adverse reactions continue to grow each week following administration of the injection.
READ: WATCH: University experiments on aborted baby parts, funding linked to Fauci
The official data released by the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now numbers a total of 122,712 adverse reactionsrelated to the Moderna injection since it began to be given last December. Of those, 2,077 patients died following the injection, around half of the total deaths following COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., and 8,822 serious reactions were recorded.
Yet the injection continues to be a success for all those who have invested in it. Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine has received $2.5 billion in funding from the U.S. government so far. The company predicts it will garner $18.5 billion from sales of the injection, a product of which the NIH has ownership of some of the “intellectual property,” revealed NIH director Francis Collins.
This injection was co-developed by NIAID scientists, whose practice is guided by Grady’s ethics. In fact, Collins described Grady’s analysis of the COVID-19 situation as “invaluable” to the NIH.
Grady’s vaccine ‘ethics’ and predictions about digitized medical records in 2021
Grady herself has authored numerous papers and articles on the subject of ethics and vaccines, often proposing radical steps regarding vaccination. A 2004 paper entitled “Ethics of vaccine research” was prefaced by her stating that the goal of vaccination is “to benefit the community at large rather than the individual.” Such philosophy is echoed by governing health bodies today, who continue to recommend the COVID-19 injections as a good for the wider community, despite the growing number of adverse reactions, arguing that the benefits outweigh potential risks.
Then again, in 2012, she penned an article reflecting on her time in the field, and predicting what life could look like in the year 2021, painting a picture that eerily mirrors the current calls for health records to be digitized and utilized in the form of vaccine passports: “In 2021, most people in the U.S. have had their whole genome sequenced by their health care provider as a routine part of care and have access to their own sequence data stored in the cloud. Each person can decide whether or not and how she wants to share her sequence data with researchers through a menu of research studies publicly listed on a smart phone application.”
Grady also predicted the manner in which bioethicists and health ministers could become influential in the years around 2021, responsible for coordinating global health policy: “By 2021, international collaborators from around the globe, who had been committed to working together as partners to design and conduct research of high ethical and scientific quality research, were now collaborating on other issues of importance to global health and global justice. Bioethicists serve as clinical and research consultants, members of oversight committees and policy bodies.”
— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Fire Fauci and investigate him now!
55,525 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 60,000!
Another paper alluded to radical experiments on fetal therapy trials, under a “new ethical framework.” Considering only “biomedical benefits” in fetal therapy was not enough, co-wrote Grady. Under the new framework for such a medical field, “Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk–benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.”
Bill Gates connections
LifeSite co-founder and president Steve Jalsevac has written extensively on the link between Fauci and billionaire globalist Bill Gates in regards to their vaccine advocacy.
Gates is an ardent advocate for the roll-out of experimental coronavirus vaccines throughout the world, and has engaged in developing micro-chip style COVID-19 tracking platforms, in a style envisaged by Grady in her article looking to the future she envisaged in 2021.
Gates has publicly called for vaccines to be delivered to the entire world, declaring back in April 2020 that the world would not return to normal until the population had been “widely vaccinated.” He later ridiculed suggestions that the experimental COVID-19 vaccines could be unsafe, dismissing contrary opinions as “conspiracy views.”
A whistleblower from the World Health Organization (WHO) even revealed that Gates exerted so much influence in the WHO as to effectively control the organization, and was treated as a nation state in his own right.
Indeed, Fauci and Gates have long been partnered in rolling out vaccines to the global population. Back in 2010, Fauci’s NIAID partnered with the WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to enact Gates’s plan for a decade of vaccines. A detail of particular importance is that Fauci was part of the five-man Leadership Council of the plan.
The Gates Foundation has also already donated many hundreds of thousands of dollars to both the NIH and the NIAID, calling into question the unbiased nature of any decision made by either Grady or Fauci regarding development, testing, and roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Hence, as numerous emails are currently being released revealing Fauci’s own actions at the start of the Wuhan coronavirus last year, and the “gain-of-function” experiments at the laboratory in Wuhan funded by NIAID, evidence suggests that his wife could well be in a position of severe conflict of interest as regards her own ethical guidance to the NIH.
RELATED:
Fauci knew about possible COVID lab leak evidence, ‘gain of function’ concerns, emails reveal
Tucker Carlson: Fauci committed perjury, might be under criminal investigation already
Facebook CEO offered Dr. Fauci ‘very exciting’ proposal, vaccine ‘resources’
Gay activist to Fauci in 1988 amid AIDS crisis: ‘You are an incompetent idiot’
Saturday, June 5, 2021
KENNEDY ROGERS SAID IT WELL ...
GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO HOLD THEM ... AND WHEN TO FOLD THEM! NOT ALL THOSE ALIVE IN CALIFORNIA ARE STUPID!!! LET'S HOPE THEY LEAVE THEIR LIBERAL IDEAS IN CALIFORNIA!!!
Commuters navigate early morning traffic as they drive towards downtown in Los Angeles, CA, U.S., on July 22, 2019. (Mike Blake/Reuters File Photo)
Taxpayers Fleeing California Take $8.8 Billion In Gross Income to Other States
California, with its relatively large tax burden compared to other states, has seen a taxpayer exodus in recent years and, along with it, billions in taxable gross income.
State-to-state migration data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shows that California lost an estimated net 70,534 households—or 165,355 taxpayers and their dependents—in the years 2017-2018, with those fleeing taking around $8.8 billion in net adjusted gross income with them.
Interstate migration flows are influenced by a number of factors, including retirement, job opportunities, and housing costs. Brandon Ristoff, a policy analyst with the California Policy Center, told Center Square that the flight of billions of dollars from California is driven by the state’s “bad policies on the economy, education and more.”
“California used to be a place where everyone wanted to live, but now California has become a place where people want to leave,” he told the outlet.
The top three beneficiaries of the California exodus were Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. The bulk of the departing Californians filed their taxes in Texas, with the Republican-led state seeing a net inflow of 72,306 taxpayers and their dependents, and a gross income boost of some $3.4 billion.
An estimated 53,476 Californians relocated to Arizona, bringing with them around $2.2 billion in gross income. Nevada welcomed 49,745 California taxpayers and their dependents, along with a gross income of $2.3 billion.
There is little agreement among experts as to how large a role taxes play in state-to-state migration.
A routine Census Bureau survey asks people who move any distance the main reason for their decision to relocate, including employment, housing, going away for college, crime, or to join a significant other. The most popular choices in 2019-2020 (xls), ranked according to popularity, were “wanted newer/better/larger house or apartment,” followed by “new job or job transfer,” “to establish own household,” “other family reason,” “wanted to own home, not rent,” and “wanted cheaper housing.”
The least popular were “natural disaster,” “change of climate,” and “foreclosure or eviction.”
But while taxes were not part of the Census Bureau survey, a 2018 analysis by the Cato Institute argued that taxes do influence migration, and said tax-related motivations could be inferred from some of the Census Bureau survey’s responses.
“The Census Bureau does not ask movers about taxes. But some of the 19 choices may reflect the influence of taxes. For example, people moving for housing reasons may consider the level of property taxes since those taxes are a standard item listed on housing sale notices. Similarly, people moving for new jobs may consider the effect of income taxes if they are, for example, moving between a high-tax state such as California and a state with no income tax such as Nevada,” the institute wrote in the analysis.
California, with its state-local effective tax rate of 11.5 percent, ranked eighth highest in terms of the state-local tax burden for 2019, according to a Tax Foundation analysis. Texas, by contrast, with a state-local effective tax rate of 8 percent, ranked 47th. Arizona, with a state-local effective tax rate of 8.7 percent, ranked 45th, while Nevada, at 9.7 percent, came in at 29th.
According to the Tax Foundation’s 2021 State Business Tax Climate Index, California’s ranking was even more grim, second only to New Jersey, which the foundation labeled as least tax-friendly.
Thursday, June 3, 2021
I'M OLD ENOUGH TO KNOW WHEN ... WE HAVE BEEN PHUCK!
Rehab that works!
After 6 burglaries, 3 car thefts, multiple illegal trespasses, ongoing cocaine, and alcohol addiction, committing 2 violent home invasions, 3 armed robberies, dealing Fentanyl and Meth, passing counterfeit money, beating 4 victims senseless, and being arrested 23 times since 1998, George Floyd hasn't committed a crime in over one year now!
BUT IT DID NET HIS FAMILY $27 MILLION FROM THE STATE AND $20 MILLION FROM A GO FUND ME ACCOUNT.
We are one sick country!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)