Most Liked Opinionated Blogs (1,909)

Vladimir Putin may soon vanish for a period as he is due to undergo surgery linked to cancer, according to a new claim.

He has allegedly secretly nominated his hardline security council security secretary Nikolai Patrushev - a former KGB counterintelligence officer - to take “control” of Russia while he is incapacitated.

Shadowy Patrushev, 70, is seen as a key architect of the Ukrainian war strategy and the man who convinced Putin that Kyiv was awash with neo-Nazis.

The extraordinary unconfirmed claims come from General SVR Telegram channel, which first raised issues of Putin’s health - including abdominal cancer and Parkinson’s - some 18 months ago.

They come amid speculation that Putin will announce all-out war in Ukraine, and order mass mobilisation of military-age men. Such a move would be seen as high-risk since many may refuse to fight.

It is suggested Putin, 69, has already delayed surgery, which is now unlikely to take place before he presides over the grandiose Red Square 9 May Victory Day commemoration of the defeat of Hitler.

The surgery had been scheduled for the second half of April but was delayed, it was claimed.

Read more:

Despite bombshell claims in the Left-leaning media that Trump ‘was at the center’ and to be blamed for the Jan 6 ‘carnage’, last night’s ‘first hearing’ of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack proved disappointingly flat.

The event was treated like a blockbuster film, with blanket coverage on all major networks. This was the first of at least six hearings scheduled just for the month of June, and it was heralded by Democrats with the promise of “unseen” footage and Hollywood-style production values that would excite and enliven what is, by now, somewhat old news.

Calling it the “first hearing” is something of a misnomer, however, because the House already held hearings, in July 2021, in which Capitol Police officers exhaustively detailed their defence of the Capitol building. But it’s the nature of political spectacle to demand the revelation of continually fresh horrors, even if they add nothing new.

What was on display at these hearings was tame. Yes, people marched on the Capitol and knocked over metal barriers. Yes, at least one window was broken and protestors clambered through it. Rioters tangled with police, and some officers were evidently injured. The mob did stream through the Capitol building, and Congress did adjourn for a few hours, before reconvening to finish its business of certifying the 2020 election, after the would-be insurrectionists went home.

Is that… it? One would expect, given the ubiquity of cameras today that they would have scraped up some evidence that January 6 really was as violent and dismal as we’ve been told, constantly, since it happened. In order to be shocked by video of cops and protestors in a scrum, pushing each other, with occasional punches or kicks, one would have to pretend that the summer of 2020, when violent riots resulted in thousands of police injuries and billions of dollars of damage by fire, had never happened. Certainly, we sympathise with Capitol Police officers who were hurt on January 6. But when they took their jobs, was there an expectation that they would never have to deal with a riot?

It’s a measure of the distance between rhetoric and reality that, though the media incessantly dwells on the “deadly” nature of the riot, Thursday’s hearing made no reference to anyone’s death. And for good reason. Though seven people “lost their lives” in connection with January 6, only one was killed. Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed veteran, was shot at point-blank range by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd, who faced no discipline for his action, and who has since been praised as a hero and lifesaver.

For months after the event, the media and the political establishment insisted that another officer, Brian Sicknick, had been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by rioters, but this bogus martyrdom was exposed as a lie by the Washington D.C. Chief Medical Examiner, who found that Sicknick died of natural causes.

Ultimately, the events last night amounted to a damp squib. The chain of claims that supposedly link Donald Trump to the actions of moronic hooligans is tendentious. The case is based on assertions that Trump told “lies” about matters of opinion, and that he did not listen to the advice of some of his aides. Trump called for a rally which turned into a riot; therefore, Trump caused a riot. Some of the mob imagined that they could prevent the transfer of power; therefore, the whole thing was an attempted coup.

Read more:

The Russians have captured 3 People fighting for The Ukrainian Cause .2 Are from the UK, and one is from Morocco.. One of the two from the UK has been living in Ukraine since 2018. and is engaged to be married to a Ukrainian Woman ,Yet the Russian Dogs are claiming that the three of them are paid Mercenaries and have imposed the death penalty on the three of them
This whole situation goes against the Geneva Convention's laws and rules
But then again the Russian Dogs do not go by any rules except their own
Some people say that Ukraine should do the same thing with their Russian Prisoners
But that doesn't matter to Putin as he could give a damn about his own people
And now Putin is claiming that he is Peter the Great
He's Peter the Great alright
The only problem is that his army is Petering Out
Putin's army in a lot of cases are refusing to fight his war
And where there is dissent? there will be Danger ,and it's not very far from this Peter the Great
And The Free countries of this world sit back and watch the war from their chairs
What are they afraid of with Russia? His nuclear capabilities?
Not to worry on this issue because most of you don't know That when Ukraine became a Sovereign country?
Ukraine and China signed a Deal that says That China Must come to Ukraine's Aid if they were attacked by a Nuclear strike
It is Time to make a stand against this Paper Tiger Russia
Because eventually all of you free counties will have to do this in the future

It's easy to get people to lie when you pay them more than double what they would normally earn.

The sham Jan 6th panel has made its staffers a lot of money since it started.

They have spent over $2.5 million in taxpayer funds so far — and many of the staffers have made over $10,000 a month for their role.

KRISTIN L. AMERLING – $15,666/month
DAVID B. BUCKLEY – $15,666/month
TIMOTHY J. HEAPHY – $15,666.67/month
THOMAS E. JOSCELYN – $15,416/month
WILLIAM C. DANVERS – $14,491/month
STEPHEN W. DEVINE – $14,491/month
TIMOTHY R. MULVEY – $14,166/month
CANDYCE D. PHOENIX – $14,166/month
LISA A. BIANCO – $13,333/month
SOUMYALATHA O. DAYANANDA – $12,916/month

DANIEL A. GEORGE – $12,916/month
MARC S. HARRIS – $12,916/month
SEAN P. TONOLLI – $12,916/month
AMANDA S. WICK – $12,916/month
JOHN F. WOOD – $12,916/month
TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS – $12,083/month
ALEJANDRA APECECHEA – $12,083/month
MARCUS CHILDRESS – $12,083/month

MEGHAN E. CONROY – $12,083/month
KEVIN S. ELLIKER – $12,083/month
JACOB H. GLICK – $12,083/month
CASEY E. LUCIER – $12,083/month
ROBIN M. PEGUERO – $12,083/month
SEAN M. QUINN – $12,083/month
JOSHUA D. ROSELMAN – $12,083/month
JAMES N. SASSO – $12,083/month

The spending isn’t over yet.

They are on track to spend $8 million this year — all to go after President Donald Trump and his allies.

According to a Congressional aide familiar with the Committee’s expenditures, it is also on track to spend $8 million this year.

There are 51 staffers working for the Committee who have salaries that average more than double what average House staffers make, coming in at $124,416 compared to the average staffer’s salary of $59,000.

GOP Rep Rodney Davis, the ranking member on the House Administration Committee announced that once the Republican party takes back control of the House an investigation into the Jan 6th committee will take place.

No charges from Gascon in liberal Los Angeles.

I'm not a lover of the royals...i don't like them ruling over us peasants...stealing our money in taxes...living lavish lifestyles...doing nothing at all that is good...being extremely unproductive...unaccountable and of course very unpleasant.

the media brainwashed the great unwashed into thinking the royals were something good...when nothing could be further from the truth...rulers and thief's are not good and all they do is laugh at the stupidity of the majority of sheep...who worship them.

very sad to see this ruling class...still around after so many hundreds of years and yet so many are struggling to make ends meat...while they celebrate their oppression of us all and waste billions on it...while people are living on the street

WTF is going on

Saville was great friends with the royals and Epstein was great friends with Andrew...so you should remember this...before...you line up to worship...the untouchables...who can commit any crime...without punishment

Germany you are welcome to the deadwood spongers...but leave all their wealth to the public

Aimee Arrambide, Executive Director of avow, a Texas-based organization devoted to "Securing unrestricted abortion care and reproductive rights was asked simple questions by Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), listen to her responses.

As I was going to say

The Federal Election Commission in Washington, D.C., has totally dropped the phony case against me concerning payments to women relative to the 2016 Presidential Election. It was a case built on lies from Michael Cohen, a corrupt and convicted lawyer, a lawyer in fact who was so corrupt he was sentenced to three years in jail for lying to Congress and many other things having nothing to do with me. I thank the Commission for their decision, ending this chapter of Fake News. Between two sleazebag lawyers, Michael Avenatti and Michael Cohen, we were all able to witness law and justice in our Country at its lowest!

Jimbo will be along later to say he made a mistake and mis-judged Trump

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states.

California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.

Telling the rest of the country that they can’t eat meat unless California is happy about it is a step too far.

Imagine that a friend of yours wants to lose 10 pounds. You might advise your friend to diet, avoid unhealthy foods, and exercise more. You might even offer some unconventional tips, like sleeping regularly or keeping a daily gratitude journal.

But what if you went to all the stores in your state and told the owners that your friend must not be sold junk food? Or went to all the nearby gyms and told the owners that they must offer a weight-loss program specific to your friend?

Now we’re getting into the realm of the absurd, and rightly so. Your principles and desires, however justified they may seem, do not give you the right to force others to obey your will.

Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>

This scenario is playing out in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which the Supreme Court will hear next term. The case involves a California law, Proposition 12, that regulates the confinement of farm animals, including pigs, and was approved by more than 62% of California voters.

It is all well and good for Californians to decide that their pork must come from pigs raised in a supposedly more humane way. But instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states. Because California imports most of its pork from other parts of America, Proposition 12 ends up regulating pork producers across the country. In fact, because the state imports a whopping 99.87% of its pork, the law has more of an impact outside the Golden State than inside.

This is nanny-statism on steroids. It’s as if one of 50 children appointed herself nanny and decided how the other 49 should be allowed to play.

The good news is, there are rules that forbid these sorts of shenanigans.

The Constitution’s commerce clause states that only Congress has the power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that state laws that attempt to regulate interstate commerce are unconstitutional.

This so-called dormant commerce power has invalidated state regulations many times. In 1945, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law that limited the size of freight trains because “the practical effect of such regulation is to control beyond the boundaries of the state … ”

In 1970, however, the court complicated this straightforward doctrine by establishing a balancing test stating that if local benefits come from the regulation, then the “incidental consequences” of that regulation may be justified, even if they interfere with interstate commerce.

These twin questions of external effects and compelling state interests are the battle lines along which the two sides in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross are arguing over Proposition 12.

California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.

Read more: