“She Can Write Any #$@!% Thing She Wants”: Totenberg Slams NPR’s Own Ombudsman Over Debunked Gorsuch Story

Nina Totenberg slammed Kelly McBride, the ombudsman for National Public Radio (NPR), for concluding that she should rewrite her story accusing Neil Gorsuch of refusing to wear a mask to protect his colleague, Sonia Sotomayor. McBride did not suggest a correction but merely a “clarification.” Totenberg responded to The Daily Beast and declared that McBride “can write any goddamn thing she wants, whether or not I think it’s true.” Now, days after rare public denials by all three referenced justices, many in the media who denounced Gorsuch have followed suit. They also refuse to clarify or address their own attacks on the justice in light of the denials from the Court. Notably, Gorsuch was the subject of another false story connected to the same oral argument. Many also did not correct that reporting. (For full disclosure, I testified before the Senate in support of Gorsuch’s confirmation).

The philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville once said that “there is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.” That is certainly the case with the Supreme Court this month. After striking down the Biden vaccine mandate for workplaces, the Court found itself embroiled in the raging question over masks in the workplace after the NPR story.

Nevertheless, Totenberg pounced at the chance to (again) pummel Gorsuch:

“Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up. They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.” 

It did not matter that Totenberg had previously attacked Gorsuch. The media showed the same hair-triggered tendency with previously debunked stories.

Gorsuch did appear in the last argument without a mask. Ironically, if he had simply worn the commonly used cloth mask, there would have been no outcry even though the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

It is also not clear that Sotomayor even knew whether anyone or everyone would wear masks at the argument. She had previously stated an intention to participate remotely. Given the lack of protection from most masks (including reused or contaminated N95 masks), Sotomayor likely felt the risk was not worth taking. Yet, Totenberg states as a fact that Gorsuch’s “continued refusal since then has … meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices’ weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.”

None of this mattered as the media ran with the story of Gorsuch forcing Sotomayor to stay virtual and refusing to yield to Roberts’ alleged encouragement to wear a mask.

MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace declared Gorsuch guilty of “anti-mask insanity.” Her colleague Joy Reid accused Gorsuch of virtually standing Sotomayor up in front of a COVID firing squad for his personal enjoyment. Reid declared that Gorsuch was “risking the life of your colleague” and was a “rotten co-worker,” “dangerous to be near in a pandemic,” and “tonight’s absolute worst.”  Reid even declared on the air that  Gorsuch “loves COVID — which makes him the perfect Republican”.

Rolling Stone ran with the story “Neil Gorsuch Stands Up for His Right to Endanger Sonia Sotomayor’s Health,” and added “the liberal Supreme Court justice is diabetic and didn’t want to sit next to justices who weren’t wearing masks. Her conservative colleague didn’t care.”

Former senator Claire McCaskill tweeted:

So glad I voted no on this jerk. What kind of guy does this? I could tell in my meeting with him that he thought he was better than everyone else, more important, smarter. Ugh. #Gorsuch

The Daily Kos declared

“it is hard to imagine a bigger shit. But we should not be surprised…Most Americans will find his selfishness incredible, but it is typical of his kind. One trait common to every conservative is a sociopathic lack of empathy.”

Elie Mystal, who has written for Above the Law and the Nation, tweeted

Confirmation of what we all already knew. Whatever you think about masks, Gorsuch, who sits next to Sotomayor at work, just decided to be a dick to a colleague.

Then came the denial of all three justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a statement that it was false, as claimed, that he asked any of his colleagues to wear masks on the bench. Indeed, previously the justices did not wear masks during arguments. Moreover, Gorsuch is routinely shown wearing a mask around the courthouse.

The joint statement of the two justices insists that Totenberg’s account is entirely false:

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”


Notably, these are three jurists who interpret the Constitution, statutes, treaties, and agreements for a living. All three read the Totenberg report and felt compelled to issue rare public statements to refute the story.

NPR’s ombudsman found the story in need of clarification and their interpretation of the story was shared by everyone who heard the report (though Fox News’ Shannon Bream quickly and correctly challenged the report with her own sources denying the story). They understood NPR as saying that Gorsuch refused to wear a mask after Roberts asked all of his colleagues to do so to protect Sotomayor. That interpretation was readily apparent by the ragefest on cable news and the Internet as media figures lined up to denounce Gorsuch as a type of viral homicidal maniac.

In response to the justices, Totenberg insisted that she never said that Gorsuch was directly asked by Roberts to wear a mask and did not say that he rebuffed a request from Sotomayor. However, Totenberg pushed the false narrative of the story as it went viral. Totenberg tweeted the following description of her story: “Gorsuch refuses to mask up to protect Sotomayor.”

Strangely, Totenberg seemed to argue that her much promoted piece was really not much news at all. Roberts may not have asked anyone to wear masks and Sotomayor’s remote participation may have had nothing to do with Gorsuch. Indeed, even if Gorsuch wore the common cloth mask, it would not, according to various studies, afford her real protection against the variant. The problem is how virtually everyone understood her story as evidenced by the coverage.

NPR stood by the story even though its own ombudsman suggested that it should be clarified. Totenberg immediately ran with the NPR support and backhanded the ombudsman:


NPR reporter David Gura went even further and suggested that the justices might simply be lying and we should not take their account over that of Nina Totenberg. Gura tweeted “I [sic] surprised at how many Supreme Court correspondents I admire are passing along a statement from two justices that is at best false without any context whatsoever.”

Totenberg went on to say that, as a journalist, she did not even read the views of NPR’s own ombudsman review: “I haven’t even looked at it, and I don’t care to look at it because I report to the news division, she does not report to the news division.”

The NPR story is the latest example of rage politics and how the underlying truth is immaterial to the narrative.

I wrote earlier that it really does not matter that the story was false or misleading. As expected, the media simply moved on without admitting errors. It is a pattern that we have seen repeatedly.  We have discussed the false reporting in controversies ranging from the Lafayette Park protests to the Nicholas Sandmann controversy to the Russian collusion scandal to cases like the Rittenhouse trial.

We are left with a Zen-like “tree-falling-in-the-forest” paradox: it is not fake news if the news will not admit to faking it. That fact is that people like an ombudsman can “write any goddamn thing” they want but, if it is not reported, it matters little.  Gorsuch “loves Covid” and wants to kill a liberal colleague . . . whether he does or not.

134 thoughts on ““She Can Write Any #$@!% Thing She Wants”: Totenberg Slams NPR’s Own Ombudsman Over Debunked Gorsuch Story”

  1. That story did not need clarification it needed to be called complete BS. That would be truth in reporting.

  2. It never ceases to amaze me that the media that has abandoned every shred of journalistic integrity and information objectivity also fails to recognize they are only shooting down their own credibility when they refuse to correct content errors or double down on falsehoods.

  3. isn’t ALSO TRUE, this media manufactured outrage against the maskless “one” is an attempt to provide cover for the obviously obtuse, uninformed, complete and utter failures of a certain number (02) scotus judges who made claims about covid hospitilizations (children, 100K), and MILLIONS (Can’t remember exactly the precise number, but it was magnitudes of order false)?

    that happened during a scotus hearing specifically ABOUT covid mandates?

    injecting their opinions and gossip rather than considering the constitutional matter?

    isn’t it ALSO TRUE this deflection towards gorsuch is some rambling attempt to reframe the narrative away from the incompetency of at least two judges who made such statements AND HAVE NOT ONCE MADE ANY ATTEMPTS TO RESIZE THEIR OUTRAGES CLAIMS?

    yeah, I don’t think any of this is about masks and theso called pain of a single scotus judge that had to “shelter in place” against the terrifying risks of assembling with the panel in person to decide a very critically important issue. /s

    me thinks that the judge, who decided to duck out, would have done so for reasons that many of us have speculated for a very long time: there is no urgency or high degree of competency with some of these judges and that is plainly clear to anyone willing to call it a spade. They come into these cases with presumptions that are aligned entirely on idealogical and political habits, and little else….Sitting at home, was a means to demonstrate IN ADVANCE THE NATURE OF THE UNAUTHENTIC style they have assumed and did assume, with zero interest in actually getting the facts straight! SM knew exactly what she had decided by sitting this one out. It was a setup and scheme to protest in ways that the press and media could develop a means to counter and ignore the obvious constitutional merits of the case. I don’t even think she cares that people noticed her complete ignorance of the facts. Obviously so, given there have been zero efforts made to correct her comments and the record, even upon realizing the most liberal press had a field day with the folly numbers! And the same goes for the other dunce, who speculated out of ether, that millions had died….which is proven demonstrably false. 750 million? was it? yes, he actually said that. Also no correction to his “input” and claims.

    These are the people and the actions we are to trust on the supreme court.

    If a scotus judge can make up fantasy numbers out of pure manure, what does this tell us about preparation and self control? In what other areas, are they replacing truth and fact with horse pucky? The level of confidence this inspires is negative…We expect better, because the these decisions have monumental effects on the lives of EVERYONE. No level of error can be permitted, even if accidental and unintended. Not here…and especially not in this specific case. We expect retractions, public corrections to the record..and also some form of discipline from the courts principle. One is not permitted to ride out past the reservation and dump crap into the docket. That’s not how the courts can operate rationally.

    I say make them wear yellow robes …all OF THEM. For being cowards and fear mongering liars!

    And when I say, ALL, I mean ALL OF THEM for not having the principle to reign in these kinds of “mistakes”.

    and if they do not correct, strip them naked and force them out onto the steps for a good session of rotten tomatoes.

    make it a regular aloha friday affair after all. These people ARE NOT SPECIAL and it’s time we all realize this. They have a responsibility and we must hold them accountable to their views and claims.

    This media defense is simply to distract from the reality that this SCOTUS panel is way way out of order…

    so of course, we will make the liar the victim…

    am I the only one who sees what is going on here?

    How are we to see it any other way?

    “she doth protest much” no?

    the reason for the protest is much more revealing


  4. What would Nina and NPR and their sad, depressing, victim-based ideology think about this? Epstein can imagine them tut-tutting with their affected little NPR voices. Not so long ago, there was a time when we could laugh, together, about our group differences. What a great way to bring us all together. Epstein thinks it’s just funny.

    1. After thinking about this overnight, Epstein is even more inspired that a new generation of Americans is breaking free from the constraints of a dead-end woke ideology. Looking past our superficial differences, they are bringing us together through our common humanity. What a hopeful message!

  5. It’s not National Public Radio; it’s Democrat Public Radio. It’s unfair that any taxpayer money goes to a Democrat radio outreach program.

    These people feel entitled to lie and try to ruin the lives of political opponents. Might makes right, and the press is still mighty. This is what happens when Judeo/Christian morality is gone. Without morality, hurting people is “good” if it furthers your cause. Karl Marx would be proud.

    1. Karen S,
      NPR gets 3% of their funding from taxpayers. The rest is through contributions, or corporate sponsors.
      Funny thing is, they insist they are not biased or slanted in any way, but real professional journalists.
      As of late, they have ditched objectivity, facts, for advocacy journalism.

      I support alt-media (which NPR calls alt-right media) figures like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Tara Henley, Sharyl Attkisson, Charles H Smith and others.

        1. Bob, they have a similar law in California. It is bad legislation.

          The logic is as follows. A little old lady widow bought an oceanfront home on the ocean for $100,000 years ago. The taxes would be about $2,000+. Excluding the house today, her lot might be worth $30 million-plus dollars if appraised correctly. The taxes would be $600,000 plus that she cannot possibly afford. Therefore they capped the increase. But they could have taken the taxes through proportional ownership of the home so that when she died, the taxes with interest could have been paid from the sale of the house.

          This is driving young families away from homeownership in middle-class neighborhoods. A person living in one home might pay a small fraction of the taxes the young person who just moved into an identical home must pay.

      1. “NPR gets 3% of their funding from taxpayers.”

        Unfortunately, you and many others have fallen for their accounting shell game.

        NPR receives massive taxpayer funding, indirectly, via The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). CPB’s federally funded budget is about $500 million. About 70% of that goes to *local* public radio and tv stations. Those stations, in turn, pay a licensing fee to NPR.

        On top of that, NPR is taxpayer funded, via the same accounting shell game, via state and local taxpayer money.

        1. @Sam- thank you for pointing that out. NPR exploits an unbelievably complicated corporate structure to obscure their funding sources and activities. Through it all, they work the tax system to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Or more accurately, as a tax exempt, they pay no taxes.

          I was just looking through NPR’s Form 990 for 2018, the last year I was able to find without a lot of digging. A few interesting points:

          1. At least 15 of their executives are one-percenters, many of them earning over 10x the average American. NPR’s CEO received nearly $700,000 in compensation, including a $500,000 base salary, a $150,000 bonus, and sundry other perks, taxable and otherwise. That’s neck in neck with Anthony Fauci!

          2. NPR lobbies not only on its own behalf, but on behalf the national radio system and affiliated stations. Among other things, they and their lobbying firms hit up members of congress, the FCC, and other agencies for funding and favorable legislation. Just follow the money, baby!

          3. NPR holds an untaxed endowment of over $300 million. Money on which, as a tax exempt organization, they have never paid taxes. $300 million and no taxes. Its only their fair share. Just ask them.

          4. NPR funds operations on every continent. Among the best funded are their operations in the Middle East, Africa and Latin and South America. Do their Spanish-speaking presenters have NPR voices too?

          5. Not only is NPR tax exempt, but their collaborating stations are tax exempt, and the people who donate receive a tax deduction for their donations. It’s like Gavin Newsome, unmasked, at the French Laundry. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

          I found the above in about 15 minutes digging, and it doesn’t take into account the skeletons hidden in other parts of their corporate structure. Honestly, I find a lot more inspiration listening to things like the Gabriel Iglesias skit I posted above. Not only is NPR and its funding fundamentally corrupt, its days are numbered.

    2. “[H]urting people is “good” if it furthers your cause.”

      You mean like all of the bloody religious wars, burnings, tortures, enslavement, unjust imprisonments, impoverishment, and book banning — all done in the name of a religious morality?

  6. OT

    Speaking of the communist NPR and the communist American welfare state, is this letter posted on the Lincoln Memorial?

    Do communist union teachers teach this as part of the “Critical Race Theory” indoctrination courses in public school, and in American History 101?

    Do Americans know that Lincoln was a communist, that Lincoln was steeped in communism by communists from Germany through New York, all the way to Illinois, and that every Lincolnesque development was communistic, including the unconstitutional and still illegitimate “Reconstruction Amendments”?

    Note the signature below of the Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx.

    The International Workingmen’s Association 1864
    Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865


    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

    From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

    When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

    While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

    The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]

    Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:

    Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

    George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.

    1. P.S. Lincoln’s “large majority” victory in 1860 was 39.8%, and part of a corrupted election and unmitigated disaster for America. In 1864, the “Commander-In-Chief” deployed Union Army troops to tamper with the vote as America conducted an “election” under the duress of unconstitutional war and conscription, suspended habeas corpus, imposed martial law, Sherman’s Heinous “March to the Sea”, and tyrannical and brutal military occupation of the nation.

      You Americans had better start honoring and obeying your president:

      The Communist President of the People’s Republic of China and The Communist President of the People’s Republic of Earth, Xi Jinping.


    Let’s get back to the basics; back to the fundamentals.

    NPR is unconstitutional.

    Taxation for NPR is unconstitutional.

    Nowhere does the Constitution provide for regulation to establish NPR.

    Nowhere does the Constitution provide for the taxation of Americans in order to fund NPR.

    NPR should have been struck down by the Supreme Court upon inception.

    NPR is yet another item on the centuries long list of failures, and malicious crimes of high office, of the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.


    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton


    “…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please:…”

    “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

  8. Liberals are mostly evil, the liberal media is pure evil. I hope the coming physical war (yes, you read that right, it’s coming) between the Left and RIGHT leaves them decimated and unable to procreate.

  9. NPR and others in the mainstream media don’t practice “journalism” or “reporting.” So, stop using those words to describe what they do. Except for a relatively small minority of practitioners, almost entirely outside the mainstream media, journalism as a profession is dead. NPR and others in the mainstream media should be referred to by their proper and correct name: presstitutes. That said, NPR’s presstitutes are among the very best in the presstitution industry.

  10. Since we have to continuously hear ignorant and juvenile statements about Liz Cheney, I thought this would be of interest even though it is OT here.

    “Arizona Democratic Party executive board censures Sinema over filibuster, voting legislation dispute

    Democratic senator has bucked party line and helped stymie key Biden policy.” JTN

  11. NIna is a dried up old prune. There’s a reason she’s only on NPR making peanuts. Apparently, what she lacks in talent she makes up in arrogant chutzpah! Oy vey!

  12. OT

    Continuing operations of the Obama Coup D’etat in America against President Donald J. Trump: January 6th – Incitement to Riot.

    John Durham may be doing a “deep” investigation of those who incited to riot on Jan. 6, including Ray Epps et al.

      1. The truth about Ray Epps may not be dissimilar to the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald: FBI, CIA, NSA, USASOC, SFODA, UW, SFG, MCIA, DEEP DEEP STATE Special Operator…

        or “Patsy”?

      2. The funny thing about Ray Epps is that he’s the only MAGA hat-wearing person protected and revered by the FBI, RINOs, and the Democrat Party. Maybe Epps should run for public office. He truly has a knack for “bringing people together.”

        1. I seen a picture of him, Ray Epps, last week with Oath keepers head Stewart Rhodes, a group I’d like to be generally supportive of. I haven’t a clue as to who the players are now?

          1. I saw a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald when he was arrested by New Orleans PD for “disturbing the peace” when passing out “Fair Play For Cuba” flyers – Oswald was on the job for the CIA creating a paper trail and making himself known for future use as a “patsy.”

            The photo depicted a false reality; something his handlers were going to use in the future – that future turned out to be November 22, 1963 – it gave the CIA Deep Deep State “evidence” that Oswald was working for a foreign communist state when Oswald was working for the CIA Deep Deep State, John Foster Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, the Texas Oilmen et al.

            Oh, yeah, you seen a picture alright.

            1. Did you see the pictures of Ted Cruz on the the Grassy Knoll? Wait a minute, did I say that right. lol

              I got hooked up with VivaBarnes Law, I think @, Locals. Anyway in middle of last week they had 2 guest that went through a bunch of crazy stuff like MLK, RFK, JFK, etc, oddities.

              I thought it was a fine 2 hours educating/wasted late night when one can’t sleep.

            2. Lee Oswald was a truly remarkable human being. He’s one of the few people that could easily interrelate with communists as well as anti-communists with equal facility. He’s one of the few people in history who earned only $48 a week, yet spent tens of thousands of dollars on photography equipment, trips to Russia and back, numerous relocations and other trips, with the seeming ability to create money out of thin air. He’s also one of the few people in history who was an FBI informant and simultaneously had a CIA 201 file, even though the FBI and CIA knew nothing whatsoever about him. Lee Oswald also had the astonishing ability to commit one of the most spectacular crimes in history from the upper floor of a building and yet could appear simultaneously in a lunchroom at a much lower floor. And his ability to use a cheaply made and inaccurate rifle has never been replicated by the greatest marksmen on earth. Within less than six seconds, he was able to shoot the President through trees completely obscuring the view of any normal person. And he just got better and better during those six seconds. His first shot was wildly off mark, striking the curb of a street. Yet he was able to then get off more bullets, virtually simultaneously, striking the President’s neck, then his back, and then finally, with perfect accuracy, the President’s head. Lee Oswald also remains the only employee earning $48 a week whose tax returns remain a matter of national security. Lee Oswald was, indeed, truly remarkable.

              1. Oswald was CIA Deep Deep State, since not long after he entered the Marine Corps, who was handled by cut-outs and used, ultimately, as a “patsy” as you can hear him say on video to this day; the “patsy” was provided a job by his handlers at the Dallas School Book Depository.

                Oswald couldn’t shoot his way out of a wet paper bag; no person could fire the shot pattern and time frame that you cite and repeat erroneously, most certainly not with a Fucile di Fanteria Modello 91/38.

                The only evidence and proof you need to consider is the press conference statement of the attending emergency room physician within minutes of the shooting who said that he performed a tracheotomy in a bullet “entrance” wound on the front of JFK’s throat – the front of his throat – meaning the bullets were fired from the FRONT.

                1. I’m surprised that someone who is as intelligent as you could believe in such outrageous notions and would refuse to accept the official narrative. Many people have worked hard and long hours developing the official narrative, and you are showing great disrespect for their noble and resourceful efforts. You should be ashamed of yourself. While it’s true that Dr. Malcolm Perry said that JFK’s throat wound came from a shot from the front, he himself later stated that he could have been mistaken after he was appropriately threatened to change his story by Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, who himself was threatened by former CIA director Allen Dulles. As you well know, sometimes people just have to be threatened to tell the truth to put a stop to their compulsive fibbing. And for your conspiratorial ideas to be true, that would have to mean that the Government has been lying and continues to lie to us. And that is simply not possible. The Government loves and respects the hoi polloi. The Government’s attempts to install Vaccine Mandates is proof that this is so. Even though such Vaccine Mandates violate the Constitution, our courageous Government is vigorously fighting our Constitution to aggressively save lives from the ravages of the Covid Crisis. Their love for America’s people and their reverence for the pursuit of the truth know no bounds.

                  1. Listen to the emergency doctors before they were subsumed by the FBI Deep Deep State.

                    The “mission” of the Deep Deep State FBI in the JFK assassination was to create and perpetuate the “LIE”, to gather and change every 202, every witness statement, every theory, and every piece of information they could to the FBI’s “fake”, red-herring and false scenario of Oswald as assassin.

                2. A piece of the back of Kennedys head was on the trunk. To do that he would have to have been shot from the front.

                  1. And the following, left side, motorcycle officer was covered with brain and blood splatter.

                    Incontrovertible, indisputable, absolute and immutable fact number two.

                    1. You fail to realize that physics did not apply on November 22, 1963. By a strange, unexplained series of events, on that particular day, the Earth’s gravitational magnetic field briefly reversed from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm CST, as confirmed by NASA.

  13. It does matter that the story was false or misleading. It is instructive how the “media” pick up a rumor and blurt it out without checking its veracity. Whatever it takes to sell advertisement, to get attention, to drive home a point. If I shop at a business and ask the clerk or the owner a question and they tell me something false, I will likely forgive them for a faux pas. If the pattern is repeated or if they short change me on the transaction more than one time, then I will no longer trade with that business. In time, the business will fail because they lost the customer’s trust.

    I used to listen to NPR and enjoyed the low-key news clips and programming. I turned it off a few years ago and no longer listen. Unlike a commercial enterprise that will lose funding if the listeners or viewers move on, the taxpayers fund this program. If the reporter will not listen to the ombudsman, then she needs to find another place of employment that will appreciate her talents. If NPR “stands by her reporting” that is not truthful, then it becomes nothing less than one-sided state media such as Pravda, Ryongnamsan (North Korea), IRIB (Iran) and CCTV (CCP official television broadcast).

    Citizens seeking sound, fact-based news can no longer depend on the big networks or cable news, if they do, they must remain vigilant that what they are hearing may be sensationalized. They must seek multiple streams of information and carefully consider its content.

  14. In the US mask wearing or refusal to wear have become badges of political allegiance to left or right. What has cowardice got to do with it. I am not in the US, I live in Australia that has muddled about COVID much less than the US has. At the moment masks are required in indoor public spaces and in public transport otherwise a $1000.00 fine. We are not in lockdown but many seem to have voluntarily decided to act as if we are. COVID is a disease worth avoiding to avoid pressure on the health system as well as death and the variety of CFS that is long COVID. Hospital staff are under extreme strain those that don’t have COVID are working multiple shifts because of the absence of those that have and of those who are isolating because of contact with an infected person
    Yes we are probably all going to catch it eventually. There are 7 billion humans on Earth and only 1 billion have access to vaccines so the remaining 6 billion will be incubating new variants that will require updated vaccines. The vaccines that we have now are for the original Wuhan strain. The vaccine makers will will have a profitable few years, withholding vaccines from the 6 billion is smart commercial thinking.

    Another reason for avoiding COVID is that if successful one won’t pass it on to someone else

    1. Since you are from Australia, just wondering if you don’t mind sharing your perspective on the recent Novak Djokovic situation? Thanks for considering.

      1. I think it was a bad decision made in haste and for purely political motives and that it will eventually cause blowback in fact blowback may already have started with Serbia’s cancellation of Rio Tinto’s proposed lithium mine.

        The communication among Tennis Australia, the state government of Victoria, the Federal government of Australia and Djockovic got muddled but it was a muddle that could have been fixed if Scott Morrison hadn’t leapt to the conclusion that Djokovic was a useful scapegoat for making a point about border protection. Depending on what happens in the future it may be seen as very mean spirited. What if Djokovic never wins another major tournament, what if the profits of the Victorian open are much less because patrons who especially wanted to see him play do not attend, what if the win by the eventual winner of the mens’ singles is seen as being tarnished because of the exclusion of Djockovic.

        Scott Morrison is a political animal who makes hasty decisions that initially appear advantageous but which could have done with some consideration of ways it could go wrong.

        1. I have read at length about the legal position and it appears very murky. So far as I can tell, here are the main points:

          1. Novak had an unconditional visa issued in November.

          2. Under the Biosecurity Law and Biosecurity Determination (which relates to Covid-19), he was required to declare in his travel documents when he boarded the plane that he was fully vaccinated or that he had a medical contraindication to vaccination.

          3. Nowhere in the law or determination is there a definition of medical contraindication.

          4. The official medical advisory body, the ATAGI, says in one place that prior infection is not a medical contraindication. However, in another place it says that prior infection within six months is a temporary medical contraindication until the six months have expired.

          5. The Government asserted, including in communications to Tennis Australia, that for purposes of travel to Australia prior infection is not a medical contraindication.

          6. Tennis Australia wrote to the players saying prior infection within six months was a medical contraindication. It is unclear what legal advice they took to reach that conclusion.

          7. Two panels of medical experts, one for Tennis Australia and one for the State of Victoria (which is the relevant jurisdiction), determined that Novak’s infection in December was a medical contraindication and he made his declaration accordingly.

          8. In the first hearing, Novak argued that his declaration was accurate and sufficient in law, based both on the ATAGI guidance regarding a temporary medical contraindication and on expert medical testimony.

          9. The court resolved the case in Novak’s favour, but not in those grounds, which it did not resolve. Instead it held that the Government had not given Novak sufficient time to prepare his defence.

          10. In the second case,the Government did not assert that Novak had violated the law to gain entry. Instead it assumed he had complied. Its ground for deporting him was instead that his presence would damage public health and good order because it could excite anti-vaccine sentiment. Though the court has not yet published its reasoning, it appears to have concluded that this judgment was within the largely unfettered discretion of the Government, so it’s hands were tied.

          1. People who contract COVID have immunity for some time and given that all current vaccines are targeting the original Wuhan strain the immunity from a recent infection by a later variant may better than that from any vaccine. So Djokovic was under the impression that this made vaccination unnecessary.

            1. I think it more than this…factually, the mRNA does not prevent you from getting sick from covid, nor does it prevent you from transmitting it. We can argue how effective or not this truly is. But the reality is that by the CDC and WHO OWN data (recently published), the “protection” one may have from the mRNA vaccine in preventing transmission is at least equal to that of those who are not “vaxxed”..

              so the question becomes this:

              is the aussie policy concerned with HIS HEALTH, or those whom they believe he might infect?

              if it’s the former, that argument from a data driven scientific analysis is iffy. Obviously MANY VAXXED people are still getting sick from the cccp19 bioweapon.

              if it’s the latter, that argument also fails in the face of the data driver scentific analysis that SHOWS that the vaxxed AND the unvaxxed are equally capable AND DO IN FACT can and do transmit the cccp19 virus to others.

              If you do not believe these facts provided by many authoritative sources, including the CDC itself are true, then perhaps the narrow arguments you presented hold. But to not include the reality of the ineffectiveness of this mRNA jab to prevent transmission NOR to provide valuable durable “Protection” versus that recevied from prior infection, IS THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT AND DEBATE that any reasonable person should be having.

              which leads to the super question: isn’t it true that the aussie government is not expressing policies and mandates that follow science? That the decisions they are making and have been making are simply from a political angle to defend their decisions that have proven to be failures?

              this athlete EXPOSED these policies are incomplete and incompetent. THAT IS WHY THE AUSSIE government could not allow the discussion to arrive at the central elements of this covid crisis and how they have failed to properly address it.

              that IS the truth…

              we can quibble about what the athlete might have been thinking…or not. But the reality is that this face off, exposed the fraud of the aussie govt policy, and raised the discussion in a very international context. He might not be aware at all about the dimensions of this face off and what it would reveal.

              But THERE IT IS.

              noting: UK, Austria, and other countries have lifted all masks and vaccine mandates.

              Does anyone want to guess WHY these major nations states reversed course?

              I can tell you it most certainly WAS NOT from some embarrassment from boris johnson who had tea with friends on the porch in spring of 2020!

              When you FIGURE OUT WHY these mandates and insane policies were reversed recently, then you get closed to the truth about the nature of the failures of many nation states (almost all) to actually apply sound scientifically based judgments.

      2. Concerned…..Novak Djokovic may have lost out on his competing in OZ…..but he has picked up a nice paying gig as a Batting Coach for the British Cricket Team…..as it took the Australians two weeks to get him “Out”.

    2. “. . . the remaining 6 billion will be incubating new variants . . .”

      Your “science” is way off.

      It is telling that you chose to omit any mention of natural immunity.

  15. I listened to the NPR, Totenberg, report when it first aired.
    It was terrible in the first place. No factual evidence presented, with quotes from any of the justices, or first hand, on the record accounts from eyewitnesses.
    It reminded me of the high school rumor mill, about who likes who, or who said what about whom.

    Only goes to show how far down NPR has fallen, when they double down on their own hit piece despite the justices own account on the subject.

Comments are closed.