uniparty media

New York Times & Bezos Washington Post Today: It’s Open Season on Any and All Enemies of the Uniparty Establishment

I used to call it the “Cold Civil War,” referring to the growing sense that America is coming apart along political lines. When you hear stories of Trump supporters being attacked in public, and of major corporations like Visa and MasterCard taking steps to cut off essential services from people who don’t hold Establishment Approved™ Political Positions, it’s hard not to think that this country is heading for a major rupture that may or not turn into a full-scale Second Civil War.

But now I’m mostly moving away from that term “Cold Civil War” and the rhetoric of an impending “national divorce” because I realize media coverage focuses almost entirely on the fringes of both left (Antifa) and right (Charlottesville) in order to create the perception that there is zero common ground between left and right. In other words, the extreme and often violent intolerance coming from the left is not, in fact, indicative of the entire left but rather its most radical and despicable elements.

So I no longer really believe we’re hurtling toward a Second Civil War because the reality is that the vast majority of everyday leftists are not viciously intolerant of us. We definitely can coexist peacefully with the vast majority of leftists.

No, instead of a “Cold Civil War,” what’s happening is two things:

  1. The Uniparty Elite wants to keep Americans divided along political lines. It does not want the populist left and the populist right to realize they actually have a lot in common, most notably an enemy: the Uniparty System itself. The Uniparty wants us fighting each other instead of uniting against it.
  2. The Uniparty Elite also wants to whip up violent hatred and direct it toward its political enemies and those who stand in the way of its goals.

Today, America’s two foremost “newspapers”–the New York Times and the Bezos Washington Post–have made this all abundantly clear:

Here’s the New York Times first:

“This is not an argument for doxxing.”

Huh? That’s exactly what it is.

“Atrocities”–let’s be clear here: if what the border patrol is doing now constitutes committing “atrocities” then Barack Obama’s border patrol also committed atrocities. Obama’s border patrol locked kids in cages, separated families and, worst of all, enabled and encouraged the whole “children at the border” crisis by instituting a “catch and release” policy towards apprehended illegals.

But here’s the truth the New York Times ignores: these people are trying to illegally enter our country by the thousands. There are so many of them we cannot possibly handle them all in a pleasant and timely manner. It’s not simply that our border patrol agents are Inherently Bad People, although Open Borders Extremists would very much like to create that false perception. It’s that they’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of illegals, who are encouraged to come to our border with children because current government policy, implemented under Obama, makes it more likely you’ll be allowed into America if you come as a “family,” or at least appear to be a family.

In other words, it’s not the border patrol agent’s fault he can’t offer illegal immigrants a glass of water and tuck each one of them in for bed. Maybe if thousands of Central Americans weren’t incentivized by terrible Obama policies to storm the border by the thousands every single day then they wouldn’t be treated so harshly.

And you can tell exactly what the NYT is getting at with its sentence about “hindering the recruitment of replacement” border patrol agents: it’s about erasing the US border entirely. Their real problem is not with how the apprehended illegals are being handled and treated by our border patrol, their problem is that we even have a border patrol apprehending them in the first place.

What the New York Times is doing is trying to mobilize everyday Americans against the policies of the Trump Administration. Dox, publicly shame and possibly even physically attack Border Patrol agents so they quit their jobs, and discourage others from ever pursuing a job with the Border Patrol. The end result will–at least NYT hopes–render Border Patrol totally impotent, and the Uniparty’s dream of an unending tidal wave of mass third world migration will be even closer to reality.

Now on to the Bezos Washington Post:

“How dare someone with different political views from me show their face in public!”

Yeah, that’s very healthy. That’s totally not going to lead to violence or anything. No way that’ll happen.

Pretty rich that the people spitting on others and kicking them out of restaurants for having differing political views are accusing us of “spreading hate.”

I’m sure I’m not the only who’s noticed that the same people who claim to be “fighting against hate” are literally the most hateful people in America today.


They have become the very things they claimed to want to destroy–the key word, of course, being “claimed.” The activist left has never been “anti-hatred.” They’re the most hateful people around today: viciously intolerant, often violent, and not to mention horribly racist against white people.

But being racist against white people “doesn’t count” as real racism for the same reason hating Trump supporters also “doesn’t count” as real hatred: because they deserve it.

Yeah: that not what every genocidal dictator in history told himself or anything.

News flash, you future mass murderers: Hitler did what he did because he believed with all his heart that the Jews deserved it. He didn’t think “Well deep down I know the Jews are innocent but fuck them, I’m evil so let’s just start the Holocaust anyway.” He really and truly believed he was doing the world a favor in going after the Jews. He didn’t think he was evil; he thought the Jews were evil.

Just like you delusional psychopaths think you’re doing the world a favor by going after Trump supporters and white people in general.

Trump supporters can’t be considered a persecuted group if they deserve it, right?

What the Bezos Post is doing in encouraging leftwing activists to hound and even assault prominent members of the Trump movement who happen to venture into public places is not just “irresponsible,” as the “Peacetime Conservatives,” aka “David French Conservatives,” aka the Ben Shapiro Wing of the GOP might classify it.

It’s not “irresponsible” if you know exactly you’re doing. The Post knows exactly what it’s doing here. It is deliberately inciting violence and encouraging people towards extreme intolerance.

That’s not irresponsible. That’s evil.

Today it’s prominent people in the Trump movement–like the President’s son Eric, and his former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders–being targeted, but tomorrow it will be everyday Trump voters.

If this continues–and there’s no reason to believe it won’t–then in the very near future we could live in a country where it’s simply not safe to publicly express any support for Donald Trump at all. Violently intolerant leftwing extremists now have the blessing of the two most prominent organs of Uniparty Propaganda–the NYT and the Bezos WaPo–to hound, dox and assault Trump supporters in public places.

Again, while I no longer believe this extreme intolerance is widely accepted among the vast majority of everyday leftists, I do believe the sentiment is growing and no longer totally contained to the radical fringe largely due to the “media” encouraging it.

The trend we’re seeing is no doubt disturbing because history has shown us that a majority of the population is not needed to perpetrate genuine atrocities on a large scale. A small minority of the population can and will do terrible things to those they consider their enemies if enabled by elites in government and media.

The NYT and Bezos Post today left no doubt that this is what they want. They’re encouraging and directing their very own American version of Mao’s Red Guard to purge society of their political enemies.

This is why they are, unequivocally, the Enemy of the People.

For the Greater Good: Deplatform Every Last Person & “Media” Outlet That Pushed Russian Collusion Hoax

Over the past few years, we have been told relentlessly by Serious Journalists and Very Important People that action must be taken to stop the spread of misinformation and fake news, namely on major social media platforms.

The Aspen Institute, a prestigious think tank that hosts the trendy annual Aspen Ideas Festival, described as “the nation’s premier, public gathering place for leaders from around the globe and across many disciplines to engage in deep and inquisitive discussion of the ideas and issues that shape our lives and challenge our times,” and which features such high-profile attendees as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Stephen Breyer and Bill Gates, put out an article last year entitled “How to Stop the Spread of Fake News on Social Media.”

A few weeks after the 2016 election, The New York Times published a roundtable debate on how to stop the spread of fake news:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.41.18 PM.png

NYT felt so strongly about fighting fake news that it ran a major advertising campaign called “Truth” to show how serious it was:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.56.04 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.57.27 PM.png

According to NYT, “the truth is under attack” and is “more important now than ever.”

The Brookings Institution also published a long essay on how to combat the spread of fake news and disinformation.

Everyone who’s anyone agrees: fake news is bad, and we need to figure out how to stop it from spreading.

Facebook, the entity possessing perhaps the most influence over the spread of fake news and misinformation, weighed in on the matter in April 2017:

“We know people want to see accurate information on Facebook – and so do we. False news is harmful to our community, it makes the world less informed, and it erodes trust.”

I agree.

“It’s not a new phenomenon, and all of us — tech companies, media companies, newsrooms, teachers — have a responsibility to do our part in addressing it.”

I totally agree.

“When it comes to fighting false news, one of the most effective approaches is removing the economic incentives for traffickers of misinformation. We’ve found that a lot of fake news is financially motivated. These spammers make money by masquerading as legitimate news publishers and posting hoaxes that get people to visit their sites, which are often mostly ads.”

I think you get where I’m going with this: we have “spammers” masquerading as legitimate news publishers and bombarding people with hoax stories. . .

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.27.15 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.27.25 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.28.50 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.28.14 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.27.44 PM.png

. . . Trying to get people to visit their sites, which are mostly just ads:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.29.42 PM.png

And not only were news outlets pushing fake news and misinformation for clicks and ad revenue, they were doing so knowing full well it was a hoax:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.43.59 PM.png

I think it’s clear by now: action must be taken against CNN and its partners in crime who spent the past two years knowingly pushing a hoax story about high treason and Russian Collusion for ratings and clicks.

By Facebook’s own criteria, CNN should be given the Alex Jones Treatment.

And it wasn’t just CNN that pushed the Russia Hoax. Every major “news” outlet in America did so as well, from WaPo to NYT to NBC and MSNBC as well.

The New York Times had its own section dedicated to the Hoax entitled, “Trump and the Russians.” I have to post it in multiple screenshots because a large advertisement takes up most of the first shot:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.59.20 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.00.36 PM.png

I’m starting to think NYT was just kidding with all the “Truth” grandstanding:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.02.19 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.02.32 PM.png

The Washington Post was even worse than the New York Times and arguably even worse than CNN if we just go by the level of hyperbole in their headlines:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.05.26 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.06.46 PM.png

Facebook, Twitter and all the major social media providers must deplatform CNN, Washington Post and the New York Times immediately for their role in spreading false news and misinformation.

What sort of message would they be sending if they allowed these phony news outlets to spread all this fake news and misinformation without holding them accountable? After all the Serious Rhetoric and hand-wringing about fake news and misinformation?

And it wasn’t just the news outlets that fanned the flames of the conspiracy. There were major politicians and officials involved:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 2.38.56 PM.png

Adam Schiff should be deplatformed.

Former CIA head John Brennan as well:

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 3.11.13 PM.png

The list goes on and on and on. Virtually all the biggest names in the Democratic Party and in the “mainstream media” peddled this debunked conspiracy theory, knowingly deceiving the American public and perpetrating the greatest hoax in history.

We must take steps to ensure they are never able to do so again.

Boston Herald’s Adriana Cohen sums it up:

“So now what? For starters, Twitter, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies should remove all Russian collusion conspiracy theorists from their platforms.

After all, social media networks didn’t hesitate to ban Alex Jones of Infowars and others for spreading misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, so why not ban House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Schiff, Eric Swalwell, John Brennan, Beto O’ Rourke and scores of media hacks who’ve all done the same?

And what about Google? Will it continue to allow search results that yield now-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding Russian collusion and the Trump campaign? Or will they do the right thing and scrub misinformation and lies to stop the hoax from perpetuating?”

Ban them all.

Terrorist Violence Only Matters When the US “Media” Can Exploit it Politically

Christian Lives Don’t Matter, according to the US media:

Just because you Watch The News doesn’t mean you know what’s happening in the world–you only know what the corporations that control the “News” want you to know.

The fact that you don’t hear anything about this from them is deliberate:

“The recent death toll of Christians in Nigeria has reached 120 with this week’s slaughter of more than 50 by Fulani Muslim militants in the Kaduna state of Nigeria, the Christian Postreported.

The Fulani jihadists, who have become a greater threat to Nigerian Christians than the Islamist terror group Boko Haram, stormed the villages of Inkirimi, Dogonnoma, and Ungwan Gora in the Kajuru Local Government Area last Monday, destroying 143 homes, killing 52 people, and wounding dozens more.

The assailants reportedly split into three groups, the first of which fired upon the people, the second set fire to buildings, and the third chased down people fleeing from the scene. Victims of the assault included women and children.”

Keep in mind that this has been going on since January 2018 and the cumulative death toll of Nigerian Christians is said to be more than 6,000, and virtually nobody in the West (including myself, until today) knew about it.

That’s because our “media” didn’t want us to know about it.

They don’t cover it when Nigerian Christians are slaughtered because they want to downplay the fact that Christians, not Muslims, are the most persecuted religious group in the world according to Pew Research.

This does not fit their narrative that Christianity Bad, Islam Good.

The New Zealand Mosque shooting, however, was headline news for 72 hours because we must all be made painfully aware of the constant threat of White Nationalist Violence led by YouTuber PewDiePie.

White Western Nations are the only places on earth where minorities are oppressed and killed, and the societies themselves on the whole are to blame, not the individual killer. As long as the media simply doesn’t report on or significantly downplays all other examples to the contrary.

And open borders multicultural globalism, in which insulated elites in heavily-white secular countries import hundreds of thousands of third-world aliens for the purpose of dispossessing and displacing the heavily-white native populaces, is most certainly not to blame for tribalistic violence like we saw in New Zealand.

No siree: a dispossessed white extremist launching an assault on a mosque and Muslim community that had sprung up in a city called “Christchurch” certainly is not an inevitable consequence of multicultural globalism. Don’t even go there, buddy.

When Muslims attack and terrorize white Western (ostensibly) Christian nations, it is excused as “blowback” for Western European colonialism and unwanted American military intervention in the Middle East–in other words, we invite Islamic terrorism on ourselves by meddling in their business.

But would they ever make the same justifications when the shoe is on the other foot?



Dems Will Not Allow Fox News to Host a 2020 Debate. Republicans, Take Notes

For well over a decade, Democratic politicians have not hid the fact that they despise Fox News and do not consider it a legitimate news source but instead enemy propaganda.

In fact, for all the fretting about how President Trump’s criticisms of the “mainstream media” constitute an attack on the very idea of a free and independent press, Democrats have cumulatively over the past 15 years or so to diminish and delegitimize Fox News than Trump has done to the Democratic Media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo).

In 2010, President Barack Obama said Fox News is “destructive to America.” Obama repeatedly complained about Fox News being the one big-name news outlet in America that was critical of him. He even spied on Fox’s James Rosen in 2013, which is way worse than anything Trump has ever done to the media.

Loads of lesser Democrats over the years have thundered about the supposed perverse impact of Fox News.

Now, with the 2020 Democratic Presidential primaries getting started and debate season around the corner, the DNC has announced that it will not allow Fox News to host any Democratic presidential debates.

The Democrats refuse to hold a debate in enemy territory.

And that’s fine. Why would they hold a Democratic debate on a Republican network? It makes no sense for them.

The real question, though, is if Democrats are honest about the fact that Fox News is their enemy, why are Republicans such pussies about all the networks that are their enemies?

Why on earth should Republicans allow Partisan Democratic Propaganda organs like CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC to host Republican debates?

Why do Republicans keep entertaining the lie that CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC are “mainstream media” outlets instead of Democratic Propaganda Organs?

Is it because “that’s the way it has always been” going back to the 1960s?

Or is it because Republicans are so delusional they still, after all this time and after all the straight-up evil done to them at the hands of Democratic Propaganda Organs, believe they can “win over” the media and get them to be less hostile?

Listen up, you useless Republican pussies: you will never “win them over.”

And I don’t care if CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC were (relatively) legitimate, “mainstream” news sources back in the day.

They’re not today.

They are full-blown Democratic Party propaganda organs committed to destroying you and this country with round-the-clock, unanimously negative coverage. They will even straight-up lie about you if necessary.

The Democrats didn’t hestitate to completely cut Fox News off.

Republicans should do the same for the supposed “mainstream” “media.” Don’t treat them like legitimate news sources. Cut them off entirely.

No Republican debates anywhere other than Fox News in 2024.

In fact, don’t even make appearances on those networks. All that does is give them the ability to claim they’re “giving both sides a platform.”

Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Real Reason Pelosi is Trying to Prevent the SOTU?

I’m sure most of us assumed Nancy Pelosi’s reasons for preventing President Trump from delivering the annual State of the Union address in the House chamber were a combination of the following:

  1. Straight-up pettiness.
  2. A pathetic attempt to gain leverage over Trump.
  3. An attempt to actively suppress the President’s voice and prevent him from speaking directly to the nation about his immigration policies.

But what if it has something to do with the potential incapacitation or even death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? During a State of the Union address, the nine Supreme Court Justices join the House and Senate bodies in the audience, and sit prominently in the front row, meaning Ginsburg would be in attendance.

If the State of the Union address is held and she is not in attendance, it raises some obvious questions: Where is she? What is the state of her health? How long has she been unable to leave her home? When will she be able to return? Is she able to fully carry out her duties as a Supreme Court Justice in her state?

Perhaps the real reason Pelosi is stonewalling the State of the Union is because she wants to delay it until Ginsburg is healthy enough to attend.

Or, many are even suggesting it’s because Ginsburg already dead and the Democrats are trying to keep it a secret for as long as possible.

Keep in mind that Ginsburg hasn’t been seen publicly in weeks and the Uniparty media could not be less interested in finding out why. I’ve seen some claims that she was last seen 18 days ago, but when I Googled “Ruth Bader Ginsburg last public appearance” the top result was from December 15, 2018, when she did an interview in New York with NPR. We don’t really have a solid answer for when she was last seen.

Also, recall that when First Lady Melania Trump underwent a medical procedure and wasn’t seen in public for several weeks back in May 2018, the media was all over it: “FIRST LADY HASN’T BEEN SEEN IN 18 DAYS!!!” the headlines blared:

Screen Shot 2019-01-28 at 1.12.19 PM.png

So the media definitely keeps tabs on these things. They are fully aware of how long it has been since Ginsburg was last seen, yet they’re not asking any questions and demanding to know the truth. That’s because they already know the truth and are in fact working to cover it up, rather than expose it.

We know how important Ginsburg is to the left. If she leaves the Supreme Court and Trump appoints her successor, the court will have a 6-3 Republican majority. This will be a major sea change moment in the history of the court.

Leftists know the end is near for Ginsburg, yet persist in a state of willful self-delusion over the whole thing, with “journalists” writing pathetic propaganda pieces about how she supposedly is a gym rat and her workouts are so intense that even young men in their 20s can’t handle them.

Is it that much of a stretch to believe the Democrats and their propagandists in the media are covering up the true state of Ginsburg’s health, or even that she is dead?

Would you put it past the Democrats? Would you put it past the Uniparty media?

I’m not saying I think Ginsburg is already dead, because I don’t see how Democrats would benefit from keeping that a secret–unless they really are planning on keeping it a secret for the next two years, when they hope to have a Democrat in the White House.

At most they could delay the news of her death breaking a few weeks, perhaps a month. What would they gain from that?

It’s possible they’re trying to wait out the end of the current Supreme Court term, which ends in late June. The Supreme Court generally hears cases from October through June, with the months July through September being off-months.

But can they really go full Weekend At Bernie’s with her until July? No way, right? Even if the Uniparty media works tirelessly to stonewall and keep the secret, it will somehow get out over the course of the next five months. It’s impossible to keep that a secret.

Right now, their official line is that Ginsburg is healthy and recovering at home, “staying on top of her work” there. What’s more likely is that her clerks and staff are doing everything for her, writing her opinions for her and making statements to the press.

But even this is unacceptable: a major part of being a Supreme Court Justice is being present in the courtroom and hearing the oral arguments of a case. Right now we have eight of the nine Justices present hearing arguments.

At the very least, we deserve to have a time frame for when Justice Ginsburg will be back and able to fulfill the requirements of her job. If she has to miss work for an extended period of time, she owes it to the American people to at the very least say so.

Preferably, Ginsburg would just resign and spend her remaining days with her loved ones, but Democrats will not allow that to happen.


Fox News briefly ran this graphic last week, then claimed it was a “technical error”:


Why would they even have the graphic prepared in the first place? How could they accidentally run it?

Could it be that the person responsible for putting the graphic on live TV was either not in-the-know that Fox’s official stance on the matter was to be part of the cover-up? After all, Fox has been slowly becoming more and more anti-Trump and pro-Establishment as of late. Or, could the person who ran the graphic potentially have been trying to subvert his Establishment superiors and get the truth out to the public?

This is more believable than, “Whoops, due to a technical error we accidentally created a graphic for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and then also accidentally put it on live television for the whole country to see.”

What’s Going on With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Health?

The Ministry of Truth is in full phalanx-mode over Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health. What, exactly, is going on with her? We can’t get a straight answer. The only time any news of Ginsburg’s health is mentioned in the Uniparty “media” is when they can spin it into a positive.

Yet clearly she’s not doing well. Back in September, she made an appearance at George Washington University Law School in front of a large crowd, and could barely keep her head up. Not only that, merely speaking seemed taxing and laborious for her. Look at this footage:

She is obviously in failing health. It often took her a while to respond to questions, she loses her train of thought, and her voice is soft and weak. She weighs no more than 70-80 pounds and can barely lift her head.

We are not buying for a second that this woman is in good health.

As we recently heard, she had cancer “nodules” (I put the word in quotes only because I have no idea what a “nodule” is and don’t want to pretend otherwise) removed from her lungs. A week ago, the Supreme Court’s official statement on the matter was as follows:

“Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

According to the Ministry of Truth, she’s fit as a fiddle and ready to get back into her Killer Workouts which are so balls-to-the-wall a 27-year-old POLITICO reporter could not even handle them. Doctors estimate that Ginsburg will live to be 117, and plans to run in the Boston Marathon this summer.

Okay, I made some of that stuff up, but sadly not all of it.

Anyone with a functioning brain can see that the woman in the video above is clearly in failing health and has no business being on the Supreme Court in that state. It’s straight-up cruel of Democrats to force her to remain on the bench in her condition solely because of their overriding and all-consuming hatred of Donald Trump. They don’t care a lick about her as a person, they only care about #Resisting Trump. If they had any compassion at all, they’d let her retire and live out her remaining days in peace and privacy with her friends and family.

Returning to the original question of her cancer: maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else have no recollection of hearing about her being diagnosed with cancer several months back? I do not remember hearing anything about it in the Uniparty “media”. Do you?

A Google search shows that Minitrue remarked on Ginsburg’s cancer surgery on December 21 of last year, but only the surgery.

I narrowed the dates on the search to prior to Dec. 21, 2018, but nothing came up–nothing about a diagnosis of cancer:


As far as I can tell the general public had no idea Ruth Bader Ginsburg had cancer prior to December 21, 2018.

I’m not talking about when she was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999, or pancreatic cancer in 2009.

I’m talking about this past year. Where was the announcement that she had lung cancer?

It doesn’t appear there was one.

A physician named Brian Joondeph wrote an opinion column yesterday in the Daily Caller asking a few questions about Ginsburg’s recent surgery:

“The statement is curious, however. As a physician myself, I am acutely aware of medical wording and nuance. With medical malpractice attorneys hiding behind every corner, physicians are careful how they create medical statements, especially when there is little absolute certainty in the medical world.

“No evidence of remaining disease” could simply mean that they removed the two cancerous nodules they found on a lung scan after her recent fall. If these nodules represent cancer that spread from her previous colon or pancreas cancer, the doctors removed what they found in her lungs. This doesn’t speak for cancer that might have spread to her liver, brain or bones.

“No further treatment is required” might imply that she is cancer free. It could also suggest the opposite, that she has metastatic cancer that is no longer treatable, other than hospice care, and that further treatment is futile at this point, hence not required.

The media were giddy with excitement that the liberal lion of the court was ready to get back to her job of thwarting President Trump. TMZ caught a glimpse of her, “emerging for the first time” from her Washington, D.C., apartment. CBS reported that her recovery is “on track” with “no sign of remaining cancer.”

Fox News echoed the others by saying her recovery was “on track”, although they curiously described her recent surgery as, “early-stage lung cancer surgery.” Not so if it was metastatic cancer, meaning stage four and quite advanced.”

The bottom line here is that Minitrue is oddly tight-lipped about Ginsburg’s health as of late. We don’t fully know what’s going on.

And this isn’t just me saying that; it’s a practicing physician saying it. She might have stage-four cancer and we wouldn’t even know.

All this leads to the recent (within the past few days) rumors swirling that Ginsburg now has pneumonia and is in failing health. Of course, there’s nothing about her possibly having pneumonia coming from the Ministry of Truth, but a website called the Santa Monica Observer was the first to report it two days ago:

“As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.

Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.

The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.

No one in the media or in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court’s most liberal justices.”

You might be thinking, “What the hell is the Santa Monica Observer? No credibility.” That’s a valid concern because I, too, had never heard of the Santa Monica Observer until today, but apparently they were the first to report on her initial lung cancer diagnosis back in September, which they were then attacked by Minitrue over, even though it wound up being borne out by events:

“When we broke the news in September, which we obtained from a confidential source in Justice Ginsburg’s inner circle, the left went on attack.

Snopes.com labelled our prediction that Ginsburg would undergo cancer surgery then retire, #FakeNews. Sadly it wasn’t.”

Here’s what Santa Monica Observer said in September:

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a re-occurrence of malignant melanoma, she has told her law clerks. Ginsburg was treated in 1999 for colon cancer and had surgery in 2009 for pancreatic cancer.

She has told key Democratic members of the Senate about her medical condition, including ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein. This explains in part the “take no prisoners” attitude of the Democrats during the Kavanaugh nomination, carefully orchestrating weak 37 year old allegations against Kavanaugh by Women he barely remembers knowing in High School and College.”

Is Santa Monica Observer correct? Only time will tell, but the pneumonia rumors are swirling and have more credence now given that Fox News just reported Ginsburg had to back out of a scheduled speaking event in New York that is not until February 6.

If Ginsburg is so healthy and fully recovered, as the Ministry of Truth is reporting/wishing, then why did she back out of this scheduled event that is taking place several weeks in the future?

A site called “Inquisitr” tried to “debunk” the recent pneumonia rumors with an article headlined, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Not Fighting ‘For Her Life’ With Pneumonia, Despite Outlet’s Claim.” But the Inquisitr piece only attacks the credibility of the Santa Monica Observer, pointing out that SMO claimed Ginsburg had melanoma when in reality it was an early form of lung cancer.

However, we don’t know that she doesn’t have melanoma. We have only been told by Official Sources that she had the lung cancer cleaned up.

And even if we grant that SMO was incorrect about the melanoma claim, they were still correct overall about her having some form of cancer, and that was back in September.

In case you were wondering, apparently, lung cancer surgery often leads to pneumonia for older patients. Joondeph:

“The latest concern is that Justice Ginsburg could develop pneumonia, a common complication of lung surgery, particularly in the elderly and infirm. Pneumonia is often called “the old man’s friend” not to be sexist but because, “left untreated, the sufferer often lapses into a state of reduced consciousness, slipping peacefully away in their sleep, giving a dignified end to a period of often considerable suffering.”

The bottom line is, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pneumonia, we are not going to hear about it from the media.

Her health is a closely guarded secret, which can only mean that the outlook is not good.