Here is the news, and these are the views.

As I am fascinated with and by American politics, I try and keep myself updated with most things American. The main news source for me comes from two sources. The first is a daily snap-through view of the New York Times. My choice of reading may surprise some, but to paraphrase Sun Tzu “If you know the enemy, and know his thinking and his lies, and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles”. The second comes from The Epoch Times, its webpages and its YouTube videos ‘Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov.’ The Epoch Times has been honoured by demonetization of its YouTube broadcasts; I state honoured’ because if your opponents are trying to silence you, you must be on the right track. I view other resources, but these are the main ones.

Very recently, the Epoch Times ran a survey asking for readers views on their lists of ‘Best’ and ‘Worst’ Presidents. I give you screen-shotted views of both lists:-

Obviously, the opinions and listings are the readers own views brought to life, and of course are coloured by their own experiences; the favourites are self-explanatory: but to place Joe Biden, by 89% as the second least favourite has to say something, even after less than a month into his Presidency.

(Update) One Law for us, but Definitely Another for Them

If a newspaper, a social media user or a TV personality intrudes into my private life, exposes me or mine to ridicule or untrue allegations, and if I have somewhat deep pockets; I can sue them through a British Court of law. The ONLY thing which stops many from resorting to the Courts on this type of activity is that which I mentioned: the Cost of such an action.

When the Mail on Sunday printed whole sections of a letter from Meghan Mullarkey to her estranged Dad, Meghan and her pussy-whipped Prince promptly sued. The newspaper accepted the suit, battle lines were drawn, and various legal avenues were extensively and expensively pursued. The America-based Duchess suddenly applied for a long delay, which was granted for ‘personal reasons’. Mullarkey then asks the Judge for ‘summary judgement’; meaning that the whole idea of a trial is short-circuited, based upon the Judge’s reading of evidence produced in private: and that Judgement is granted.

The question must and should be asked; was the summary judgement given because the evidence submitted in private was so overwhelming, or was it delivered because of who Meghan Mullarkey and her ginger man are?

I don’t normally read or even comment upon these people, their ideals and strange ideas about their privacy, even when they have also revealed that their American mansion has ‘only’ 16 bathrooms: but I do feel comment is necessary when it seems that undue favour has been delivered.

Update:-

On 11th February, Meghan Mullarkey was handed this victory WITHOUT A TRIAL. Courtesy of a Judge

On 15th February we read this.

Now normally I am no conspiracy theorist or apologist. I prefer facts to fiction, but this concurrence, this almost unbelievable happenstance does give me pause to consider just that. Was she given the ‘Victory without a Trial’ because of the impending release of all those headlines?

Mine own opinion?

I reckon the Mail on Sunday should not delay any further before appealing the Judge’s decision. No lawyer I; but that is what I would do, based upon the evidence already in the public domain.