Some thoughts regarding Cancel Culture and Boycotts

Quote of the week

“Nothing ever comes to one that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.” – Booker T. Washington

And today, this cartoon would be blocked by Facebook, YouTube. Twitter, CNN, and their fellow travelers.

Buddy’s Soap Box

A patriotic Texas howdy from Buddy

Have you noticed how progressive wokies run like scalded dogs when challenged to debate? Looking at the matter in military terms, no army wants to fight uphill against a well-fortified position.  Well, to continue the metaphor, we conservatives have not just the hilltop, we have that shining city on the hill Ronald Reagan described, a city nation built over two hundred years upon a foundation provided by the Constitution of our Forefathers, our Judeo-Christian heritage, a profound work ethic, and a solid sense of free man and free market. That’s a lot to have on our side, and for all that, we take a just pride that cannot be shaken.

And what do the socialist wokies have on their side? Precious little. To be charitable, it is pretty hard to defend things that never work. Socialism and communism have never worked. Nor will defund the police, or open borders, or stealing elections. Defending such views is not just difficult, it is impossible. That’s why the progressive wokies resort to non-debate, calling any who question their agenda “racists,” “sexist,” etc.

Some thoughts regarding Cancel Culture and Boycotts

When should conservatives seek to cancel someone? When should we boycott? For the former, the answer is “never!”  We as honorable people should never be in the business of seeking to destroy someon simply because they do not share our view of the world. On the other hand, boycotting directed at a business represents a kind of free speech equally available to those anywhere on the political spectrum. One doesn’t boycott individuals. One boycotts a business or an organization when that business or organization seeks to advance a moral or ethical perspective counter to one’s own.

However, before undertaking any boycott, the most important thing to consider is who might be harmed? Case in point is the decision of several mega corporations and internet giants, and above all, Major League Baseball, to boycott Georgia because the Georgia Legislature voted to continue requiring voter I.D. along with other election safeguards common to every other state.

Voter I.D. requirements are ubiquitous. Virtually everyone has I.D. And anyone without an I.D. can easily get one.

So, it is pretty clear the “No I.D. to Vote” movement exists for no other purpose than to make it impossible to prosecute voter fraud. If no voter must identify himself, then there is no way to tie the individual to the vote he cast.

With the above in mind, it seems to Soap Box that those calling for a boycott of Georgia businesses have their agenda backward.

And now, back to the question, when one considers the idea of a boycott, one should think about who will be harmed. In the Georgia case, the people and small businesses, conservative and liberal alike—are being harmed, seriously harmed, but not the corporate and tech giants doing the boycott.

So, how do we little people respond to a ham-handed big boy boycott of the little people, a boycott—of all things—intended to secure unsecure election practices? Answer, we boycott in kind. Put our honor and our future ahead of any value we might derive from their product, but do it in a measured way, a way that hurts the corporate bottom line but spares all the smaller businesses that benefit indirectly.

For example, the Ford Motor Company has put its name on a two-page ad that appeared in the April 14th edition of the Wall Street Journal with a link to the Black Economic Alliance web site. One column posted on the site has the headline, “Charles Phillips on growing corporate backlash to Georgia’s controversial voting rights law.”  So, if anyone had any doubt, the Wall Street Journal’s two-page ad, as cautiously crafted as its wording might me, isn’t really a call for fair elections. If it were, no one would be boycotting Georgia.

Given that, you may want to join with others in boycotting or at least using fewer products and services from the companies who, in our view, care very little about honest elections.

Taking two examples, Ford and Coke, are both companies I have long liked. Now Buddy won’t be buying their products.  My next vehicle will not be a Ford, and I’ll order or buy nothing bottled or canned by Coke. And I will do likewise with other companies on the list (I save lists).

If just a small percentage of us do as I’m doing, we won’t put Ford, or Coke, or these other gone-woke companies out of business. That isn’t the plan. That would hurt all their employees, good people like you and me, everyone a better citizen than the elites. Employees won’t see the company’s bottom line dip because of you and me and the power of the many we wield. Rather, the corporate elites will see profit tip in the wrong direction. That WILL get their attention.

Other Items in the News

Poll numbers Soap Box would like to see—99.9% of Americans prefer to see Democrats sent packing before they can pack the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, Texas Scorecard put together a legislative priority tracker, which tracks the progress of bills in the Texas House and Senate to show the movement of each party’s legislative priorities. Citizen advocate groups in other states would do well to create a tracker for their states. With it, busy citizen voters can quickly see what each political party’s priorities are.

Patrisse Cullors, a BLM founder, bought four homes for between 3.2 and 4.2 million dollars, but Facebook thinks you don’t have a right to know about it. Soap Box thinks otherwise. One of the homes is in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where just 1.4% of the home owners are black.

Apparently, Cullors, an avowed Marxist, needs a roof over her head—four, in fact! Anyone who buys houses one after another is likely buying a lot of other stuff as well. Where does all of the money come from? BLM received $90 million in corporate donations in 2020 alone. How much good has it done the black community, especially in the cities that were looted and burned?

Pennsylvania Forced to Remove 21,000 Dead People from Its Voter Rolls. The state of Pennsylvania reluctantly removed the deceased voters, leaving many Democrat voters rolling over in their graves!

Project Veritas, God bless ‘em, is out with another undercover video: PART 1: CNN Director ADMITS Network Engaged in ‘Propaganda’ to Remove Trump from Presidency … ‘Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out of Office’ … ‘I Came to CNN Because I Wanted to Be a Part of That’

“Batman, riddle me this.” says the Riddler, “Why did the science-driven powers that be halt further distribution of the Johnson and Johnson Covid vaccine?” Seven million doses have thus far been given. Out of that seven million, six women experienced serious blood clotting that may or may not be vaccine related. Let’s assume all six were caused by the vaccine. That’s still one bad outcome out of a million. Soap Box is certain the J&J vaccine will soon be deemed safe. So, no long-lasting harm in this immense overreaction. But how many people, in the meantime, who would have gotten the J&J vaccine will instead get Covid and some die? That number has to be many magnitudes higher than six unfortunate cases. Otherwise, it would mean the J&J vaccine doesn’t stop Covid. And any informed person knows it does.

How Georgia’s Voting Law Compares to 7 Blue, Purple States’ Laws. Democrats have repeatedly denounced the new Georgia election integrity law that requires IDs for absentee ballots, but seldom criticize blue states that have comparable laws on their books—or in some cases, laws making it more difficult to vote than in Georgia. 

479,372 Number of license-to-carry permits issued by the State of Texas in 2020. Buddy didn’t get one of those permits; he and Judy renewed the permits they already had.

60% of Texans say mail-in ballots should only be available for: The elderly, disabled, those away from home for work or school, and those serving in the military. This clear majority likely reflects the thinking of voters in ALL states.

The 100 plus companies who petitioned for no I.D voting all require I.D.’s when you do business with them.  And a former NFL star says that if “woke” corporations are so concerned about voter ID laws, they should help minorities obtain government ID cards. But the truth is, unless you are a troglodyte living in a hole in the side of a hill, you already HAVE a valid I.D. Without an I.D. you can’t do anything, from getting on an airplane to receiving food stamps. And you SURE can’t get into a government building without a photo I.D.—except, apparently to vote, if the Democrats and woke corporations have their way.

A Texas economist says the state could lose billions of dollars if we secure our elections. He says look at Georgia.  Soap Box says hogwash. But even if there were some truth to it, we ask, at what price are you willing to sell your free and honest vote?

Highly Recommended

The following are excellent resources for those of us (way more than 75 million strong) who want full and honest news reporting. We’ll be adding to this list as we go along. Those who prefer filtered news—only the news deemed safe for them to know—can stay with the legacy media, such as it is.

Here’s a great way to join thousands—and eventually millions—of others who are letting their government representatives know their thoughts on pending legislation.  Heritage Action for America from the Heritage Foundation makes doing so super EASY! They do the research. They inform you. Then in almost the blink of an eye, you contact your federal or state representatives regarding pending legislation expressing your support or opposition.

Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) AARP is a shill for big government, AMAC isn’t.

Fox News and One America News (OAN) Cable channel

The Epoch Times print newspaper and web site/email updates

Dennis Prager  This man will help you find the mainstream conservative hiding inside you.

President Donald Trump’s Great America PAC is now up and running.  Give to this PAC or to individual candidates you know to be truly conservative. Money given to the Republican Party is money down a RINO hole.

Project Veritas, Fun and informative hidden camera videos exposing the secret agendas of the left in their own words.

Columns worth reading

Each week under this heading, I’ll include columns or intros to columns you can read in full elsewhere on the internet. Each of these columns pretty much express my views, else I’d not be sharing them with you.

The following excellent and informative piece by Christopher F. Rufo is a bit long but essential to an understanding of what progressives are pushing in our schools and government.  As you will see, Critical Race Theory is nothing more than warmed-over Marxism. While CRT claptrap and Marxism are much admired by many in higher education, once understood for what it is, people with common sense find it is not at all their cup of tea. And they will want to stand against such nonsense.

Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It

March 2021 • Volume 50, Number 3Christopher F. Rufo

Christopher F. Rufo
Founder and Director, Battlefront

Christopher F. Rufo is founder and director of Battlefront, a public policy research center. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and a former Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. As executive director at the Documentary Foundation, he has directed four films for PBS, including most recently America Lost, which explores life in Youngstown, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Stockton, California. He is also a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers topics including critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, and crime.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus. 

But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in. 


Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression. 

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.” 

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution. 


What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color. 

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions. 


Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.

Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.” 

Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow. 

Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.


No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving “cultural hegemony” in America’s public institutions. More and more, it is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level. 

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?

There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.

We already see examples of governmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for governors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. And I have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).

On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.  

In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time. 

Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists. 

Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America. 

Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.

4 thoughts on “Some thoughts regarding Cancel Culture and Boycotts

  1. ” …the Johnson and Johnson Covid vaccine?” Seven million doses have thus far been given. Out of that seven million, six women experienced serious blood clotting …” I HAVE THE SOLUTION: On my registration for the shot(s) I was asked my ‘Gender at Birth’ followed by “Preferred Gender”. From now on everybody should declare themselves MALE. As males have suffered no blood clotting, problem solved! Once again, the WOKE have saved us unwashed masses.

    1. Very interesting observation. We hadn’t heard that the clotting was a female only problem. Your suggestion makes sense but, unfortunately, those in power who follow the “science,” whatever that is on a given day, will ignore sensible solutions and instead deprive millions world wide of a vaccine that would save far more lives than any lost to the blood clotting. Why not let people sign a waver saying they understand the slight risk and are willing to accept that risk as far less than not getting the vaccine.

      Also interesting that when you registered for the vaccine, you were asked for your “Gender at Birth,” followed by your “Preferred Gender.” So far we’ve not seen that in Texas. Soap Box prefers to stay with our original two genders, male and female, as opposed to the woke crowd’s alphabet soup.

  2. I believe the key error in your arguments lies in the fact that you utilize truth and logic. All of which have absolutely no relevance to, or bearing upon, the liberal mind.

    All that matters to those of weaker mental capacities is how they ‘feel’.

    For those at the center of all creation, in the mind of the wholly self-centered, their ‘feelings’ ARE the truth.

    After all, why struggle with the difficulties of reason when all is easily determined by consulting their own ‘feelings’ for the core of any matter. In the world of the do-it-yourself-god, one instantly becomes the final arbiter of “truth”. (It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is ~~ Bill Clinton)

    Better still, for those who regard themselves as one of the ‘enlightened elitists’, such a mindset likewise renders any and all of their ‘feelings’ to be the entire and inviolate truth. After all, they ARE better than you. Just ask them.

    So in following: if one determines that they are their own god – in the event that others fail to see the flawless sincerity of the do-it-yourself-god and are mindless enough to have their own opinion…? These are the ‘ignorant’ and ‘stupid’. Their inability to see the obvious greatness of the liberal’s own godhood is what keeps the world from ‘living in peace’ and must be done away with. That ‘s why the French had the guillotine, the Bolsheviks had the Gulag and the Chinese have their “re-education” camps.

    (At this juncture it may pay to note that this is nothing new. The central ploy to every deception always comes from the belief that one is capable of being god. To wit:

    “…for in the day that you eat (of the fruit) you will be like God; knowing (determining) both good and evil.”

    It’s funny how the nature of deception has never changed. What worked back then continues to function just as effectively today.)

    On to something more specific:

    Why did J&J get called out when people died from their product? The answer is quite simple:

    J&J didn’t pay enough in bribes to the proper media outlets in the guise of advertising and likewise failed to make substantial contributions to the right political campaigns.

    Remember when Bill Gates and Microsoft got hauled into congress for an anti-trust ‘investigation? Silly Billy…he hadn’t made any ‘contributions’ to the correct politician’s campaigns.

    A dilemma easily resolved by sending few million-dollar ‘contributions’ to some key politicians and – *poof* – the magic of money led the investigation to rapidly conclude that there was no problem after all and the whole thing simply disappeared into the political ether of D.C.. Amazing!

    So all J&J has to do is follow the lead of the other Big-Pharma vaccine manufacturers and buy a lot of advertising from the media and send more campaign ‘contributions’ to certain political powers and then, they too, can have the news of any further embarrassing deaths go wholly unreported.

    After all, the lies of omission are far safer to commit when they are dressed in the guise of ‘editorial discretion’.

    And so it goes.

    1. MID, Thank you for taking the time to speak well and eloquently. People often say “I feel” when they really mean “I think.” I try to avoid that. And you are right, it does seem that those on the left are more often driven by emotion than reason, We see that in their approach to issues. Rather than addressing an issue, stating their reasons for favoring or opposing, they tend to instead focus on attacking the messenger–President Trump, for example–rather than the issue he favors. Those with a good counter argument deliver that argument. Those with thought founded on emotion, with no real argument, or a weak one, instead attack the messenger.

      MID, further comments from you will always be welcomed. Likewise, readers with an opposing view are equally welcome. Unlike the media elites and big tech, Soap Box and Buddy censors no one, in the hope that something can be learned from anyone who takes the time to think and speak. And now, more than ever, is a time for all good citizens to think and speak,

Leave a Reply