While I always hate to be the bearer of bad news, I don't think that there's any way out of the current situation. Historically, whenever a republic has fallen to tyranny, it has never been able to rebound from it.

Here's what I believe we're looking at right now.

There are many theories over the years on how to destroy the United States of America. Most were thought up by foreign adversaries, like the Chinese, some were though up by citizens. No matter the case, we are seeing a large number of these strategies being enacted right now. I'll list a few and let you take from it what you will.

First we'll start with the Chinese. The Chinese have figured out the easiest way to defeat the U.S. It's subversive, so as to elude most people's senses. Plus getting cheaper products on Amazon keeps most people mesmerized.

A leading Chinese professor—who is also an adviser to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—laid out a comprehensive plan for the communist regime to overthrow the United States as the world’s superpower.

The professor’s multi-pronged strategy involves a range of malign actions to subvert the United States while strengthening the Chinese regime. They include: interfering in U.S. elections, controlling the American market, cultivating global enemies to challenge the United States, stealing American technology, expanding Chinese territory, and influencing international organizations.

Jin suggested that the CCP should interfere in U.S. elections to bring pro-Beijing candidates to power. He singled out races for seats in the House of Representatives as an easy target.

“The Chinese government wants to arrange Chinese investments in every single congressional district to control thousands of voters in each district,” Jin said.

“The best scenario is China can buy the United States, and change the U.S. House of Representatives into the second Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” he said, referring to the committee that oversees the CCP’s rubber-stamp legislature.

He said the Chinese regime wants Chinese business people to control the U.S. market, and also for them to develop their businesses in the country.

To reach this goal, the Chinese regime had tried to negotiate with Washington for the U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The agreement was actively negotiated for the decade prior to 2017, but fell off the agenda during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Some U.S. companies wishing to enter the Chinese market, and the U.S.-China Business Council have advocated for the signing of a BIT.

The professor admitted that the CCP has depended on stolen American technology to fuel its growth.

In June 2016, China’s Long March 7 rocket sent an orbital debris clean-up satellite Aolong-1 to space. Beijing claimed that Aolong-1 only brought space debris back to earth, but Jin suggested the satellite had another mission.

“The U.S. said that [Aolong-1] was collecting American satellites [from the space], and bringing them back to China,” Jin said. “We can disassemble [the American] satellites and reassemble them into Chinese ones.”

Jin also explained the CCP’s plan to exert greater influence over global bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, the International Olympic Committee, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Chinese regime’s goal is for “all these international organizations to be controlled by China. We can appoint someone who speaks Chinese [who represents China] to be its leaders,” Jin said.

“No matter how much power you have, it’s nothing if you don’t dare to use it,” Jin said. “Chairman Xi dares to use it. [Xi’s authorities] have the power, dare to use that power, and all of its attacks make the other party bleed.”

Xi’s ambitions, however, cannot be revealed to the outside world, the professor said.

It would appear from the information above that the Chinese have a pretty good plan on how to knock the U.S. down to the number (2) position globally. I think they are succeeding. We know that Joe Biden is beholden to the Chinese, by way of his family connections. We know that the World Health Organization is compromised, because their investigators are Chinese paid.

World Health Organization COVID-19 investigator Peter Daszak has worked on over 20 research endeavors that list “affiliations” with Chinese Communist Party-linked entities, including studies funded by the Chinese government and co-authored by military-linked researchers, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

The global media has unquestioningly hosted Daszak, his Chinese Communist-aligned talking points, and failed to inform viewers and readers of his multiple conflicts of interest. Daszak has donated to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and blasted critics of the Chinese Communist Party.

So far I've only listed the things that the Chinese are obviously connected to. But what about the other things that have been going on?

If you don't know by now, there's a crisis on the southern border. Joe Biden wrote executive orders undoing all of the measures put in place by the Trump administration. As a direct result, there has been a migrant flood at the border. There has also been a media blackout along the southern border by way of the administration's requirement for Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to clear all statements through the administration, before going to the press. Also they are keeping the press from taking video along the border and in the areas where they are processing the migrants. This is all by design.

One of the ways to keep the U.S. distracted is to have many crises on many fronts. In fact there is a well planned strategy for this sort of weakening of the U.S. It's called the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.

But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in
--------------
*In public statements, it would be important to distinguish between the Income distributing function of public welfare, which should be replaced by new federal measures, and many other welfare functions, such as foster care and adoption services for children, which are not at issue in this strategy
--------------
establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests.

The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.

Basically the Cloward-Piven Strategy is to overwhelm the system by means of a "manufactured crisis" and usher in socialism. The crisis at the border is indeed a real crisis, but it's one that could have been avoided by leaving Trump's border policies in place.

Now you know the exact reason that Biden's executive orders did the exact opposite of what the Trump orders did. Guaranteed manufactured crisis.

If you paid any attention to Joe Biden's speech on Thursday 03-25-21, you might have noticed that he admitted that if they cannot get their agenda passed through the Senate, they will do whatever they have to. If Biden is good for one thing, it's telling the truth when it doesn't suit his agenda.

“I want to get things done. I want to get them done consistent with what we promised the American people, and in order to do that, in a 50-50 Senate, we’ve got to get to the place where I’ve got 50 votes so the Vice President of the United States can break the tie, or I get 51 votes without her,” the president said.

Biden has appointed the wife one of the Republican holdouts (Joe Manchin) when it comes to removing the filibuster.

President Biden is nominating Gayle Manchin, Sen. Joe Manchin’s wife, to be what it calls a “key member” of his administration. pic.twitter.com/a79KvyBuxj

— Daniel Lippman (@dlippman) March 26, 2021

Biden's plan to get rid of the filibuster will result in the passing of HR1, which will make all of the things that happened in the 2020 election legal. ALL OF THEM. Basically we will be guaranteed one party rule, because no more conservatives will ever hold federal office again. There will be one party in control of elections in the country.

This ABC News article from September 22, 2020 explains a lot of the changes the activists were able to get through.

Thanks to legal challenges from voting rights advocates, some states that typically require ballots to be received by polls closing time will accept ballots postmarked by Election Day for the 2020 election.

In the three "Blue Wall" states the president won in 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- judges have recently issued rulings that extend the deadline for mail ballots to be received.

In Michigan, a court of claims judge ordered clerks to accept ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 2 and received within 14 days of the election, the deadline for results to be certified. These ballots have to be counted as provisional ballots. In Wisconsin, a U.S. district judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 can be counted as long as they are received by Nov. 9. And in Pennsylvania, not only will mailed ballots that are postmarked on or before 8 p.m. on Election Day and received by 5 p.m. the Friday after it be counted, due to a ruling from the state Supreme Court, but any ballots that arrive within that time frame without a postmark, or with an unreadable postmark, will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point, unless evidence indicates otherwise.

In Minnesota, ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a week after the election will be counted. Both Massachusetts and Kentucky are allowing postmarked ballots received by Nov. 6 to be counted. In New Jersey, ballots received by 8 p.m. on Nov. 10 will be counted if they are postmarked on or before Nov. 3, but additionally, ballots without a postmark due to a postal error will be counted as well if they are received by 8 p.m. on Nov. 5.

In Georgia, a federal judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Election Day will count if election officials get them by the third day after the election, but the secretary of state, the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party are challenging this order in court. The RNC and Georgia GOP are arguing the ruling only applies to 17 counties that were "cherry picked" to be advantageous to Democrats. The judge's order extending the deadline doesn't specifically state it applies statewide, but it does order that those under Raffensperger's "supervision, direction, or control shall accept and count otherwise valid absentee ballots from qualified voters" that meet the postmark requirement and arrive by Nov. 6.

Everything was hinging on the postmark date of the mail-in ballots. But none of that mattered, when they were allowed to count them irrespective of the postmark date.

Pennsylvania effectively did away with any and all verification on mail-in ballots, "...ballots that arrive without a postmark, or with an unreadable postmark, will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point, unless evidence indicates otherwise." People could just produce as many ballots as needed without postmarks and they, "will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point." Do I need to point out how absurd this is?

It is also worth mentioning that the requirements to recall most state and local elected officials, require a much more secure process be followed. Think about that for a minute, it's easy to cheat and get into office, but when the public determines that there's a real need to remove someone from office, that process is REALLY well guarded.

I believe the added security at The Capitol is because Democrats plan to implement changes that the vast majority of the American people will be opposed to. They are worried that there might be a real insurrection.

How many Democrat voters really thought that the Biden administration was literally going to open the border? The vast majority of Democrat voters that I've run into, don't believe that the politicians they vote for will actually go through with all of the leftist policies they run on. Most Democrat voters figure it's pandering, and when their candidate gets in office they will "govern from the center." Democrat voters have been lulled to sleep by liberal politicians, but these aren't liberals, they are leftists.

Governing from the center is never the goal of these leftists. Tyranny is the goal of leftists.

I'm worried that we might not be able to recover from this.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I first read about Judge Laurence Silberman's ruling in an Epoch Times story.

Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along,” he added.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman concluded. “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

It made me think about the first time I remember realizing how collective the voice of the major news outlets truly are. It was when John Kerry used the term hubris. The word is not that widely used, but once Kerry said it in relation to the Bush Whitehouse, it was parroted for months by the media.

Rush Limbaugh had a 3+ minute montage of different media outlets using the term hubris. They weren’t quoting Kerry either, they were applying it to the Bush administration at every turn. I don’t think it was just because they liked the sound of the word. It’s because they wanted “hubris” to become synonymous with the Bush Whitehouse. Hubris became a household word in 2004 when Kerry used it in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.

He vowed that if elected he would go directly to the United Nations in the first 100 days of his administration to "make it clear that when the secretary of state speaks, he or she speaks for America -- not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger."

It was obvious to me at that point that there was no coincidence in the use of the word. This phrasing was coming from pretty much every major news outlet. Different shows, different hosts, all using the exact same phrasing when describing the Bush Whitehouse.

Far from parroting the same lines. Some news outlets even go after each other. They attempt to discredit news outlets that they disagree with. Project Veritas an undercover news outlet exposing many large companies and left leaning organizations sued The New York Times. The suit was based on a story in which the NYT reporters made up sources, and tried to make it appear as if the reporting from Project Veritas was false, or misleading. The NYT moved to have the case dismissed, but the judge disagreed and is allowing the suit to go forward.

In the ruling, where the NYT motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied, the judge said that the writers used “reckless disregard” and “acted with actual malice” by denigrating Project Veritas without supporting their claims with actual evidence.

Last year, NYT writers Tiffany Hsu and Maggie Astor made unverifiable claims that a video by Project Veritas about election irregularities in Minnesota was deceptive in five articles. The non-profit journalism group’s lawsuit claims the articles contained falsehoods and defamation.

“Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas have a long history of releasing manipulated or selectively edited footage purporting to show illegal conduct by Democrats and liberal groups, ” wrote Astor, in one of her articles.

In one of Hsu’s articles, she claimed that the organization “magnified the reach of the deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by conservative activist James O’Keefe.”

“The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally,” Hsu added.

Of course this is not true. Project Veritas goes to great lengths to make sure that they verify the people in the videos. In fact the majority of their footage is taken by whistleblowers from within these organizations. The NYT didn't just attack Project Veritas, they also went after the credibility of the whistleblowers.

Think about all of the stories about Trump that use "unnamed sources" from wherever. There's a reason for that, it's called making things up. The sources are too often unnamed. Most readers assume that the publisher, often some of the largest in the world, would verify their sources. In many cases there isn't a source, they are simply making it up to shape public opinion, take this Washington Post article for example.

President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to “find the fraud” in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a “national hero,” according to an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.

Of course that's not what was said on the call.

The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should “find the fraud” and that she would be a “national hero,” based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments.

In fact, he did not use those precise words.

Rather, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize Fulton County, where she would find “dishonesty,” he said.

He also said, “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.”

When The Post first reported on the call, state officials said they did not believe that a recording existed. Officials located the recording on a trash folder on Watson’s device while responding to a public records request, according to a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal process.

The Washington Post ran with the story knowing it was false. They did this because they didn't think they would be caught, they didn't know that the call was recorded. I can think of another time this happened. Remember the first impeachment attempt? The phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump called their bluff and declassified the call, then released the transcript.

Then you have the Big Tech aspect of the media. They do more to suppress news they disagree with. This happens any number of ways. Either by banning President Trump from Twitter, or simply stopping people from sharing links to news sources, like what happened to The New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop.

The judge [Silberman] also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.

Funny how it's always a mistake with Facebook and Twitter when they ban someone. It's not a mistake, until they are called out. But they have very complex systems including AI and who knows what other moving parts. They can always blame the bans on the AI, this provides them with plausible deniability. Twitter and Facebook like to give the impression that they are unware of what goes on within their own platform. This becomes less likely when the "mistakes" keep happening to conservative voices. How many Democrat lawmakers have had their accounts mistakenly banned?

Judge Silberman's ruling does give me some hope though, that there are at least some people within the system that know there is something wrong, and are willing to do something about it!

For too long now the media have worked together, in total lock step, on almost every political issue, always pushing further and further left. The media today are little more than propaganda outlets for the left. The real "Big Lie" is that the media are objective and are providing their readers with accurate news.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

It's hard to imagine how much of an impact Trump has made worldwide. One of the things that amazed me the most was people in foreign countries waving trump flags before the election. I don't remember people in other countries caring that much about who the U.S. President is. Maybe there was more to it than that.

The New York Times and ABC are aghast. An artisan in Red China has depicted President Emeritus Donald John Trump not as an orange crybaby, but as a contemplative spiritual leader in his 70s who Made America Great Again.

One thing is for sure. The fact that there's anyone out there who still holds Trump in high esteem --drives his political enemies crazy.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I have seen a lot of conflicting data when it comes to the COVID-19 mRNA "vaccines." The case to give these untested drugs to children is simply absurd!

This MSN article presents many more questions than answers. "Drugmakers Push Vaccines for Kids Amid Debate Over Need for Shot"

Historically, pediatric vaccines have focused on killer childhood diseases, but the pandemic has thrown a curve into that thinking. While the virus has been a deadly force among older adults, it’s been shown to be mild in the young with deaths relatively minimal.

That’s sparked an emerging debate among scientists about how critical it is that children be immunized. Some say the case for inoculating kids is less pressing, given that their outcomes tend to be so much better. Worldwide, the rollout of vaccines has prioritized older people and others at risk because of their health or occupation.

“Vaccines for polio, diphtheria and meningitis were all geared to eliminate the most dangerous diseases in children,” said Michael Hefferon, an assistant professor in the pediatrics department at Queen’s University in Ontario. “We now have almost the opposite. It’s a disease of adults, and the older you get the more sinister it is. Therefore children are less relevant.”

Why are scientists moving to treat patients who are at the minimal risk? This is a DNA altering drug, not sunscreen!

The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees. In a Feb. 25 letter to the White House and top U.S. health officials, the group’s president, Lee Savio Beers, wrote that having a Covid-19 vaccine for children “is essential for our nation to end the pandemic.”

Children “have suffered throughout the pandemic in ways both seen and unseen,” she wrote. “We cannot allow children to be an afterthought when they have shared so much burden throughout this pandemic.”

Follow the science right? Giving children experimental drugs because you don't want them to feel left out -- is not science. In fact it's the opposite of science. It's administering drugs based on an emotional response.

The science says that children are at minimal risk, and should not be vaccinated, much less exposing them to something that will offer little to no benefit, but does have the possibility of adverse, even deadly, reactions.

The entire response to the COVID-19 has been strange. It seems that the pharmaceutical companies were in a race to get a vaccine, before we really knew why the high risk patients -- were even high risk. Normally studies would be centered on making sure that patients reacting poorly to exposure have treatments available. Vaccines ignore those who are already sick. Vaccines are a preventative drug, not a treatment. This whole process has been backwards.

Today I saw this article. CDC shortens Covid social distancing guidelines for kids in school to 3 feet with masks

The CDC said it continues to recommend at least six feet distance between adults in schools and between adults and students. It also still recommends six feet social distancing in common areas, when eating, during in-door activities, such as band practice and sports, and in settings outside of the classroom.

“CDC is committed to leading with science and updating our guidance as new evidence emerges,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. “Safe in-person instruction gives our kids access to critical social and mental health services that prepare them for the future, in addition to the education they need to succeed.”

Science is about consistence. If six feet is still needed between adults and children, why would it be any different between two children? None of this makes any sense. None of this is based on science.

In the next few paragraphs you see the real reason why 3 feet is now allowed, and it's not based on science.

“What the CDC wants to do is they want to accumulate data and when the data shows that there is an ability to be 3 feet they will act accordingly,” Fauci told CNN. “I can assure you within a reasonable amount of time, quite reasonable, they will be giving guidelines according to the data they have.”

President Joe Biden has made safely reopening the nation’s schools for in-person learning a focus of his first 100 days in office. Some parents have been forced to stay at home to watch their children instead of going to work.

The administration has said it is pouring $10 billion from the recently passed stimulus package into Covid-19 testing for schools in an effort to hasten the return to in-person learning across the country. The money will be used in part to provide diagnostic tests to symptomatic teachers, staff and students, as well as those who don’t have symptoms but might have been exposed to an infectious person.

So it's six feet, wear a mask, wash your hands... Unless we have to get kids back to school within the remaining 42 days of Biden's first 100 days in office. The end of Biden's first 100 days lands on April 30, 2021.

Furthermore, if it's OK for kids to be (3) feet apart, then why push the vaccine, for those least effected?

Follow the science, right?

03-22-21 ***************** UPDATE BELOW *****************

Former FDA Chief Says Social Distancing Mandate "Wasn’t Based on Clear Science."

Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said that the six-foot social distancing mandate that was employed across much of the United States and the world to deal with the CCP virus pandemic “wasn’t based on clear science.”

“This six-foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID … and it really wasn’t based on clear science. … We should have re-adjudicated this much earlier,” he said in an interview with CNBC.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Now that the number of people killed in the whole nursing home tragedy in New York is beginning to come out, it's time to protect the Democrat Party.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s top aide is admitting to a coverup in New York state’s Covid-19 nursing home death toll, according to multiple reports.

CNN and The New York Post report Melissa DeRosa, Secretary to the New York governor, privately apologized to Democratic lawmakers during a virtual call on Wednesday. DeRosa said “we froze” data on Covid-19 deaths among long-term care facility residents out of fear the true numbers would “be used against us” by President Donald Trump and federal prosecutors, according to sources who participated in the call.

Cuomo is a large liability, and his mandates were echoed by some other states' governors. This is shedding a bad light on the Democrat Party's handling of the COVID-19 issues in their states. What's the party's answer? Get Cuomo as far away as you can Democrat Party as possible before he's brought up on charges for his handling of the nursing home deaths, and the coverup of the data.

Democrats never do anything without the blessing of the party --the fraudulent death statistics tie directly back to the Democrat Party. But they want it to appear as if Cuomo was acting alone. I don't buy that for a minute. That's why they had a leaked virtual call in which Melissa DeRosa was "apologizing" to Democratic lawmakers. This was leaked on purpose to further distance Cuomo from the Democrat Party.

Now Cuomo is going to have an entire Congo Line of accusers going after him for sexual harassment. Harassment charges never really hurt Democrat candidates, because the media refuses to cover them. If they are covering the accusers of Cuomo, it has nothing to do with harassment. It's a method of taking him out of the lime light for the nursing home deaths, while simultaneously distancing him from the Democrat Party as a whole.

The stories and accusers just keep coming out of the woodwork.

A former aide says Gov. Andrew Cuomo was “trying to sleep with me” during a one-on-one meeting in his Albany office last year — with the 25-year-old adding that “he implied to me that I was old enough for him and he was lonely.”

Charlotte Bennett made the stunning comments in an interview that aired Thursday night on the “CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell,” saying that her then-boss, Cuomo, now 63, asked probing questions about her sex life when they were alone together on June 5.

Far left leaning CBS News is all of a sudden interested in something that Cuomo is accused of? Since when?

But the hits just keep on coming.

Two more women came forward Saturday to accuse Gov. Cuomo of sexually harassing behavior, including a former press aide who describes struggling to free herself from his repeated hugs, and a young assistant who now says he left her feeling like “just a skirt.”

Former press aide Karen Hinton endured a “very long, too long, too tight, too intimate” embrace from Cuomo in a dimly lit Los Angeles hotel room in December 2000, she told the Washington Post.

Again another leftist media organization is now worried about what Cuomo is being accused of?

This is all about misdirection, that's all this is. Look over here, there's a sex scandal!

The Democrat's plan to avoid scrutiny by the Trump Campaign, while making insanely stupid decisions, is being exposed. Sending the sick people back to the nursing homes to die is unforgivable. This should not be forgotten.

"Follow the science," they say. You don't need a study to know that sending sick people back to infect other people is a bad idea. That's the whole purpose of a quarantine in the first place!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.