To get back at it, Home World was released on March 15th! It is Book IX and the penultimate book of the series (with the possibility of some one-off books in the future). Book X (currently untitled) will come out later this year to wrap it up. As the title suggests, our heroes are back here! As the jacket blurb notes, just a quick trip back home to wrap up all affairs…but things go wrong.
Its a fun one, guys! You’ll especially enjoy the time frame it happens and some side comments about America and the world. I thoroughly enjoyed putting part of the action in Arizona; with a character met there being based on an X friend who’s a rancher and author out in that State, though as with all characters, also a mash up of two or more people.
The JFK docs were released – no, we’re not going to find the plan by the CIA to kill him. That was never going to be in there. But this doesn’t mean we’re not finding things. Steve Portnoy did some reading:
So, the CIA noted that Oswald met with Cubans and Russians two months before Dallas. And then failed to note this little fact to the Secret Service/FBI when they knew Oswald was in Dallas when Kennedy was scheduled to be there. This is very much shades of Butler, PA. Had the CIA advised the Secret Service that a Dallas resident (and had been since June of 1962) has serious Commie connections, then it would have been natural for the Secret Service (and/or FBI) to keep tabs on him during JFK’s visit. Like maybe figuring out that he worked at a place which had a field of fire into the path the President would be taking through Dallas. And then for 60 years the CIA demanded that this be kept secret.
Pro tip: if you don’t want people to believe conspiracy theories, the first rule is to not lie by omission.
Do keep in mind that you don’t have to do something to cause an event…you can often cause the event by not doing things. You know, like not having an officer on the roof with a clear line of sight to the Presidential podium.
Malicious or incompetent? That is the unknown thing – and likely can’t be known at this point as nearly everyone involved in dead; and likely didn’t write it down…or destroyed ages ago the documents which would give us an answer. And the jokester gives us the best word on it:
I do apologize for the vulgar language…but its appropriate here. The fundamental problem here, as I’ve been noting for a while, is government secrecy. That somehow the government has got the idea that they are allowed to hide things from the people…as if we are serfs and they are masters. It isn’t supposed to work like that. What started as operational security concerns (Grant being furious at newspapers for basically writing his battle plans into the newspapers) has morphed into the government carefully doling out information which doesn’t tell us what the government actually did. If Oswald was just a lone nut then we, the people, did need to know how this lone nut was able to get into position to fire three rounds at the most powerful man in the world. The government hid that from us. Quite diligently. Because a lot of them would have been hung out to dry whether it was conspiracy or incompetence.
Trump is still holding back on a showdown with the Judiciary. The deportations to El Salvador are called “too late, judge”; implying that if the judge had ruled prior to the planes leaving our airspace, the deportations wouldn’t have happened. Roberts rose to the defense of his judges and that made them go totally insane…now basically ruling that Trump can’t be President without their permission. It is absurd…and it isn’t actually stopping anything. And Trump is just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
In any battle between the elected and the un-elected, the elected is going to win. Simple as: the people will always favor those who they voted for. Trump is likely just waiting for his best moment to strike…when it all piles up as idiotically (and it is; high and deep!) that he can be the reasonable one defending Constitutional norms.
It must be kept in mind that the Judiciary has no method of enforcing its rulings. In that, only the Executive can enforce. The unwritten rule since Marbury is Executive acquiescence – though Biden’s refusal to obey the Court on student loans ended that precedent (to no Leftwing complaints, of course). And on the whole the Marbury precedent has been good – healthy. But it isn’t so much any longer. This is mostly because the Courts are intervening in areas which have no Federal or Constitutional scope. It has happened before, of course. Dred Scott was an egregious example of the Court getting involved in something it shouldn’t have – at that time, the legality of slavery was up to the States but the Court decided without any Constitutional authority to decree that Missouri’s slavery laws were valid in Wisconsin. It was an absurdity. But for the most part, the Court remained reticent and only acted when it was something crucial.
We can pick a case to say this is when the Great Departure happened but I’ll settle on Roe – that horrible poison in our body politic. Abortion was largely unknown (and mostly impractical) at the time the Constitution was adopted. No provision in that document in any way relates to how medical practices are to be regulated, nothing in there defines when a human being is endowed with their rights, no clause says a person has a right to an action which requires the assistance of at least one other person. Given all this, it all fell under the 9th and 10th Amendments…it was a matter for the States or the people to decide. If you wanted to make it a Federal issue, you’d have to amend the Constitution. And, by and large, the people and the States were dealing with it – badly in my view as abortion was legalized in State after State but this is how it works and I could have no complaint about the process much as I dislike the result. Whammo: here comes the Supreme Court to invent out of whole cloth a “right to privacy” which means we can’t regulate abortion at the State level. It wasn’t just a stupid ruling – it was an evil ruling. It cut at the very heart of the American system of government. Until Hobbs, it essentially removed the American people from any say in the matter. Since then, its just been one bad, wicked decision after another and now we have the Courts completely out of control trying to insert a “but, Trump” exception to Article II. It has to stop. It will be stopped. Only question is whether Roberts will call off the dogs or if Trump will start to openly defy the Courts.
Blogs For Victory 
As usual, Jeff Childers gives us a lot to think about. In today’s article he goes over some of the information now revealed in the release of the JFK papers, and I think Mark will feel vindicated in his desire to see the end of the CIA after reading it. Evidently JFK felt the same way:
The details of some of this planning are chilling, including the idea of starving Cubans by killing off their crops. Shades of Stalin!
Childers goes on to speculate the possibility—just a possibility, mind you, nudge nudge wink wink—
Ending with an interesting take on the whole thing, not totally out of the question now that we are getting used to a president who plays 4-D chess:
You beat me to it. The entirety of C&C is interesting today. The segment about the experiment between federal judges and AI judges is fascinating, and the segment about property tax reform/elimination is timely. Former Indiana Senator, Mike Braun, now Governor Mike Braun is making noises about how the doubling of property taxes over the last 7 or 8 years is not a sustainable proposition, and needs to be addressed. I’ve always viewed the property tax as a highly regressive tax. A fair tax is one that is based on the ability to pay, and that is often not the case with the property tax.
First off, what a dumb idea – figure the odds that you’d actually be able to kill sufficient crops and then whatever blight you introduce doesn’t spread to other countries. What the heck were they thinking?
I can never get over the fact that when the CIA was set up, they were allowed to vet themselves. Naturally, Hoover and the FBI wanted to do the vetting – perhaps not entirely from altruistic reasons – but the bottom line is that if you’re setting up an intel agency, you want people outside of it to vet the personnel. If there was just one person involved in setting up the CIA who was a traitor then this ensured that multiple people in the early CIA were traitors and would, of course, perpetuate themselves through the system and over time. I consider it a near-certainty that at least some of the first batch of CIA people were traitors…especially as a lot of people were pulled from the WWII OSS which was simply shot through with Soviet agents. I think this explains a lot of things – and includes things like the dumb idea to poison crops…it wouldn’t work, might backfire and if it got out then it would destroy American credibility which is exactly what the USSR would want.
It does all need to be dismantled and I do hope that is Trump’s ultimate goal. It isn’t that we don’t need intel – but to have an agency just for that seems to me to invite folly. Think of MI5 – founded in 1909 it grew into a monster and by the 1940’s was pretty much under the control of the Soviets. How could this be? Because it was all secret…anyone trying to expose its failures and follies would be at risk under the Official Secrets Act of 1911 and so it was just allowed to go on and on as Cambridge Spy Ring operated with near-impunity for twenty years.
My preference is to break up the functions – military intelligence to be handled by Defense, diplomatic intel to to be handled by State and economic intel to be handled by Treasury. Military officers doing military intel, intel attaches for State and Treasury agents taking care of their end…all info flowing to the DNI who then both informs the President and distributes the intel product around the federal agencies as needed (so a report from our attache of Country X buying arms from Country Y would also get sent to Defense intel…other hand, military intel noting that Diplomat X from Country Y was at Country Z’s military base would be passed on to State; so on and so forth).
This provides accountability – your goal isn’t to be secret, but to find out what others are up to and inform the President – and through the Executive, the people – what’s going on so that rational policy responses can be made. The backup to this is I believe we should legislate that nothing remains secret for more than 10 years. That is sufficient time to extract any at-risk personnel assets before the word gets out.
I have never understood why the Kennedy family would be so adamant about hiding information about JFK’s wounds. That just never made sense to me. OK, early on, I get it. For his widow and siblings, the gory details might be a little traumatic to relive. But he has only one surviving child, no surviving widow or siblings, and the event is so far in the past that it can’t have much of an emotional impact on the family.
No, I have always believed that the driving force behind the secrecy was the Intelligence Community, particularly the CIA. The CIA had so many fingerprints all over the assassination, many of them bloody, that it was imperative to keep their convoluted involvement under wraps.
What they have needed to hide has not been anything about JFK, or even how many shooters there were. What they have needed to hide has been everything about Oswald.
By the end of the day on November 22 they had pretty much sewn up a coherent Oswald narrative. They had him locked into being present on the 6th floor of the book depository when Kennedy was shot, they pinned the murder of a Dallas policeman on him and they had him in custody. They had a nice little backstory like the photo of him with the rifle found onsite, and his palm print on the barrel of the rifle (though with no explanation of why or how no other fingerprints were found, such as on bullets or trigger, etc.). Their biggest problem at the time was Oswald, who was not cooperating.
For one thing, he wasn’t acting guilty. He was calm, and assured everyone that his arrest was simply a “mistake’ that would soon be corrected. He acted exactly like someone confident that the facts would exonerate him. But as time went on, and he realized he was being accused of the cop shooting in addition to the assassination, he started to realize that (as he put it), he was just the “patsy” in a much larger scenario than he ever realized.
They “solved” the Oswald problem on national TV, and then “solved” the Jack Ruby problem a few years later, but too many pesky details kept surfacing that they couldn’t convincingly cover up. For example, how or why did the USSR accept a “defector’ who was just a low-level schlub? It could be explained in terms of Oswald’s security clearance and work on the U2 project, but that would contradict the narrative that he was a goofball loser.
And then how did this guy’s Russian wife get permission to leave the country and move to the United States? This was an era when cultural groups like the Bolshoi Ballet were allowed to go to the West but every member of the troupe was carefully guarded to prevent escape, yet the daughter of a highly placed KGB office was allowed to just up and move to the West. (That doesn’t even get to the question of Ruth Paine, the woman she then moved in with, who was sometimes referred to as her “interpreter” though Paine’s Russian was very bad and Marina’s English was very good, except when she needed to use language to dodge questioning. Nor does it address the fact that it was Ruth Paine who got Oswald the job at the book depository.)
What would prompt an intelligent man like Oswald to act so irrationally that he would go to the Russian Embassy in Mexico City and make a huge spectacle of himself, pounding on the door and loudly announcing his name, and then berating the officials when they let him in, making demands and repeatedly giving his name and placing a pistol on the desk of one of them? And why did some of the people involved later say that the man who did this did not look much like Oswald?
Why did several witnesses to the killing of the Dallas police officer give eyewitness reports of two men in a car conversing with the officer moments before he was shot, and no one seeing a man who looked like Oswald?
Too many strange and conflicting facts were still circulating, and have been uncovered over the years. Some were obviously planted to mislead and confuse, but a pattern did start to emerge from the background clutter. And the pattern strongly implicated the controlling presence of an entity and Oswald’s cooperation with that entity, at least to a point.
I have always thought, as I read many analyses of the event, that while the Kennedy family might have had some squeamishness about open discussion of the details of the fatal wounds to JFK, this hardly excused the frantic determination to hide thousands of pages of information about the assassination, events and information leading up to it, and discoveries after the fact.
I have always thought that the entity in question (which has repeatedly been identified as the CIA) has had a lot more reasons to hide this information than the few remaining close family members.
“Calling the disclosures “remarkable,” the Times described how, collectively, the newly unredacted documents described CIA malfeasance on a global scale, including coups and election interference (!).”
………………………
Tucker drew a parallel between the successful soft coup against Nixon and the deep state’s attacks against President Trump. Notably, Tucker recounted how, just before the Watergate scandal burst open like a rotten water bag, Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms that he knew who really killed Kennedy, implying that the CIA had been involved.
According to reports of the meeting, Director Helms sat, stonily silent, saying nothing.
So, the CIA noted that Oswald met with Cubans and Russians two months before Dallas. And then failed to note this little fact to the Secret Service/FBI when they knew Oswald was in Dallas when Kennedy was scheduled to be there.
Well, there might have been a reason for not informing the Secret Service. If, as is suspected, Ruth Paine was part of a CIA operation and she is the one who got Oswald the job at the book depository, then the CIA was part of the whole scheme and hardly likely to inform an agency that might take steps to interfere. It is beyond coincidence that a relative of a prominent KGB officer was allowed to marry an American defector of no importance or stature, then leave Russia with him when Russians were seldom if ever allowed to emigrate, then become associated with Ruth Paine, with the cover story of Marina needing Paine as a translator, only to have Paine set up the job putting Oswald in the building along the motorcade route.
There is a theory that Oswald was working with or for the CIA, or at least thought he was, which would explain his odd behavior. Why he would stand on one street handing out anti-Castro literature and then stand around the corner handing out pro-Cuba pamphlets. Why he went along with taking the job Paine lined up for him at the book depository. Why he took no evasive action after the assassination but instead strolled down the street, got on a bus, and then went to a movie (with the speculation that he expected to meet someone). It would also explain why he was so confident that he was under the protection of a powerful entity which would quickly resolve the problem of his arrest.
And the possibility that he had been set up as a fall guy would explain the fake Oswald making such a scene in Mexico City, ostentatiously calling attention to himself.
There are other elements of the events of the day that lead to speculation of collusion with or control by a powerful agency, either controlling or working with Dallas law enforcement—things Citizen Oswald would not have been able to set up. Things like the last minute change in the motorcade route, or that Office Tippet (the murdered Dallas policeman) had a series of unexplained trips in his patrol car that afternoon including being sighted near Oswald’s home, ending up in a part of town that was not part of his usual assignment but near a movie theater where Oswald was either hiding or waiting, depending on your perspective.
Had the CIA advised the Secret Service that a Dallas resident (and had been since June of 1962) has serious Commie connections, then it would have been natural for the Secret Service (and/or FBI) to keep tabs on him during JFK’s visit. Like maybe figuring out that he worked at a place which had a field of fire into the path the President would be taking through Dallas. And then for 60 years the CIA demanded that this be kept secret.
It’s less confusing if one considers the possibility that Oswald was in that place at that time BECAUSE the CIA placed him there, through Ruth Paine, and/or that Oswald’s “commie connections” were part of his CIA cover including his “defection” and inexplicable return to the US without any repercussions or, evidently, interest in a former member of a U2 support team defecting to the USSR and then returning with a KGB-connected bride.
It is not necessary to think that the CIA killed Kennedy. It is adequate to consider, given the preponderance of inexplicable events and “coincidences”, that the CIA was aware of a plot and approved of it and contributed to its execution (so to speak) by setting up a convoluted and confusing skein of personalities and events designed to help the killer or killers evade prosecution. The actual killing is much more strongly linked to LBJ, with the blessing of an agency that would also benefit by it.
Its a good point: there was a whole class of Soviets called “refusniks” because they had been refused permission to emigrate (and thereafter suffered all sorts of legal and social disability at the hands of the government). The most common grounds for refusal: the person allegedly knew State secrets. The niece of an MVD colonel might actually have some access to State secrets…but off she went on the first request. Weird, huh?
It all goes with the rather surreal story of Oswald…nothing makes actual sense. This doesn’t dispose of the “lone nut” theory but it was clear right from the start that a deep dive needed to be done into Oswald and it never really was…the only things said about him in official documents was that he was a lone nut and did all sorts of lone nut things…but lone nuts aren’t normally married and living in the same town as mom and brother. Who, from all accounts, was just this totally normal guy who worked, paid his bills and took care of his family. Same background as Lee but totally different outcomes…which can happen (my brother lived a ruined life while I’m sitting here happy…same parents, same house…totally different outcomes). Oswald was in a lot of ways the archetype lone nut…but there are a lot of twists and turns in there that were never explored.
IMO, the real eye-opener for everyone was Butler, PA. That is when everyone with any sense at all realized it didn’t have to be a gigantic conspiracy to kill…just a few nudges and a few deliberate bits of plausibly-deniable incompetence and you’re off to the races.
And if Oswald wasn’t a lone nut – I mean, if he wasn’t just completely on his own and the only person responsible – then we are still left with the why of it all – why kill him?
We know the why of Butler, PA – Trump is an existential threat to the Ruling Class gravy train…and not just their money, but their lives. They’ve been protected from prosecution like Mobsters…they are in jeopardy with Trump in office. But, why Kennedy? The most common assertion is that he was going to dismantle the CIA…that he might want to do that after the series of bone-head CIA mistakes since he took office is easy to understand…but given who he was and the times he lived in, I have my doubts that he’d actually dismantle the CIA. Might have kicked it in the shins a bit, but not destroy it. It was just too much a thing that you needed a super-secret spy agency. It was almost a fashion necessity for you to be taken seriously as a powerful country.
I’ve always found it fascinating that the Diệm brothers in Vietnam were murdered just three weeks before Kennedy was killed. It is clear from historical documents that Kennedy envisioned an American exit from Vietnam by 1965. And this was in line with Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm’s desires. Diệm was a hard-core Vietnamese nationalist. He knew he needed US assistance to fight off the Russia-China backed North, but he wasn’t a puppet. Wouldn’t be a puppet. Didn’t want American combat troops in his country…for a host of reasons but not least the fear that if US combat troops came in, the North would be able to denigrate him and his entire government as colonial (as, indeed, the North did after we intervened in 1965). Also, most American military people familiar with Vietnam thought Diệm was the horse to back – seeing him as a Vietnamese version of Korea’s Syngman Rhee – who was also an ardent nationalist, a definite friend of the USA and someone more than willing to go toe to toe with the Communists. And like Rhee, Diệm was derided by the American left as a “dictator”…as if the other side in either country was peaceful and freedom-loving! Diệm had his flaws but if we wanted a guy in Saigon with the stomach to kill communists and never, ever quit, he was our guy.
And our government approved his removal, knowing that such removal could only happen if he were killed, and so he was. Sure, JFK had to sign off on that…but you wonder if he was given bad advice? Or maybe he had been told a story and only found out what was really envisioned after it happened? One thing certain, an exit in 1965 wasn’t going to be possible after Diệm’s murder because it would be years before a stable Vietnamese government could be put together.
And then, somehow or another, an assassin manages to get into the very obvious place to take a shot at Kennedy…and those who had screwed up Korea, screwed up Cuba, screwed up Berlin and were in the process of screwing up Vietnam got to remain fully in charge.
Odd.
“…if he wasn’t just completely on his own and the only person responsible – then we are still left with the why of it all – why kill him?”
Well, if he indicated that he might spill the beans about believing, rightly or wrongly, that he had been working for the CIA—as was hinted at when he finally started to get nervous and said “I’m just a patsy”—then he had to be shut up. Oswald was the thread that, if pulled the right way by the right people, could unravel the whole CIA operation from Russia to Castro to Kennedy and beyond.
“Oswald was in a lot of ways the archetype lone nut”
At least according to the official narrative. A narrative that omitted the fact that he had been vetted and passed a security clearance to be cleared to work on the very secretive U2 project, for example. It’s hard to relate an “archetype lone nut” to someone trusted with a position like this. Russia didn’t seem nervous about letting him immigrate, then marry a woman connected to Russian intelligence, then repatriate back to the United States with her and their child.
If the Oswald narrative is true, it would seem that SOMEONE would have been keeping a pretty close eye on Lee, given the Mexico City story, the move to Russia, the Russian marriage and subsequent connection to Russian intelligence, the return to the U.S. and then the very public antics of pro-Cuba/anti-Cuba agitation.
Ruth Paine and her story and involvement have been very carefully whitewashed and edited. Some people finally started to wonder why, as there were inconsistencies in the narrative, and some interesting facts and relationships have surfaced.
“…. prior to Ruth Paine becoming so inseparable from Marina, the person who escorted the Oswalds around Dallas/Fort Worth was George DeMohrenschildt. As Max (Good) asks Ruth in the film (The Assassination and Mrs. Paine): Why would a White Russian be so interested in a Communist? Ruth replies that this is a good question.
We actually know why. Near the end of his life, DeMohrenschildt stated that, on his own, he would have never come near the Oswalds. J. Walton Moore, chief of the CIA station in Dallas, asked him to do so. (DiEugenio, p. 194) George, sometimes called the Baron, arranged a gathering of the White Russian community with the Oswalds in late February of 1963. From that gathering, Ruth arranged a one-on-one meeting with Marina. Approximately three weeks after that meeting, April 7th, Ruth composed a letter asking Marina to move in with her. Kind of fast? (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 14)
As described in the film by myself and Peter Scott, around this time, George left for Haiti, had a briefing in the DC area with the CIA and military intelligence, and then had about $300,000 deposited into his account. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 168) As I ask in the film: Was this for services rendered? We will never know, since after he was subpoenaed by the HSCA, the Baron was either killed or took his own life by shotgun blast.
Just goes layer upon layer, doesn’t it? The guy Jackie called “uncle” as a kid is a White Russian emigre (this demographic massively shot through with Soviet agents) who befriends the Oswalds…on and on like that.
Stranger than fiction, eh? And we get grief for our “conspiracy theories”, even though so many turn out to be headlines.
Truth always is – ultimately, we’ll never really know the full story of the JFK assassination – or those of RFK and MLK. Too much time has passed, too many people are dead, too many documents are likely destroyed. But it is time to release everything we do have – and to start really thinking about it.
Another thing to give a re-think to, for an example, is the Manson murders. We all know the story – crazy Manson, set off by the song Helter Skelter, ordered his zombie followers to murder people to start a race war which would result in Manson ruling the world. All neatly wrapped up with a little bow on top.
But, oddly, Bobby Beausoleil was a Manson associate who was convicted of the murder of Gary Hinman which seems to have occurred because Manson believed Hinman owed him money for drugs. They did dress up the crime a bit like the Tate-LaBianca murders to try to throw off the police but the thing wasn’t Helter Skelter…it was just a hit over drug money. Common as dirt in the drug trade. Bugliosi who prosecuted Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders appears to have not mentioned the drug angle of this murder in his Helter Skelter book. Why not?
Because if the Hinman murder ordered by Manson was a drug deal gone bad then just perhaps the Tate-LaBianca killings, also ordered by Manson, weren’t the acts of a messianic lunatic. So, what other motivations might Manson have had when the Tate-LaBianca killings happened?
Sharon Tate was married to Roman Polanski at the time of her murder. The same Roman Polanski who later fled to France after pleading guilty to raping a minor he had drugged. So, we know ol’ Roman likes his drugs and likes his girls young … and Manson’s “family” was mostly a bevy of young girls whom he would drug and have sex with.
Let’s put a little two plus two together here…
Manson ordered the Hinman hit for unpaid drugs…was the Tate hit also because of anger over some sort of unpaid debt? Drugs or, perhaps, sexual favors provided by young girls around Manson? We’ll never know – it is all too long ago and almost all the principles are dead. We might go off this route when we consider the LaBianca’s but then we remember that Manson had attended a party at the house next door to the LaBianaca’s the year before…did one or both of the LaBianca’s attend that party? Unknown and probably impossible to know at this point…but the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles was and is very high end…not the place where a crazy cult leader of no education or money gets invited to parties. Unless, of course, that person is providing some service to the guests. Bottom line, the LaBianca’s were not random victims…Manson knew of them even if he didn’t know them explicitly. I can’t help but feel we were sold a bill of goods in the Manson trials…and Manson would keep his mouth shut for fear of an “accident” happening to him in jail (much like Maxwell is keeping her mouth shut).
We know for certain that a very large number of entertainment industry people and those who hang around with them are degenerate perverts. Have been for ages. Degenerate pervs are (a) easy to blackmail and (b) more than willing to threaten to bring everyone down if they aren’t protected. Given how widespread these actions are in entertainment, easy to see how a bit of misdirection would happen in the Manson trial…making us look carefully at Manson’s creepy eyes and the girls with swastika’s on their foreheads when both things were totally irrelevant.
The amazing thing to me about the Kennedy assassination is, given the number of players involved, that so much was kept secret for so long. I can recall reading an article back when I was either in high school or college in the 60s about how much information about the Lincoln assassination was still secret after a century.
There is a bit of that! Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary died in a murder-suicide pact with his mistress in 1889 and while a great deal is now known about the event, the location and statements of various members of the Imperial family remain unknown…which means that there are people likely holding documents secret out of loyalty to the Hapsburgs after all this time. History especially doesn’t really record why Rudolf, heir to an 800 year old Imperial dynasty, would choose to die with the daughter of a rather small-time and a bit parvenu noble house.
Over on X someone noted that we now understand why all the 2020 cases about election fraud were dismissed for lack of standing…the judiciary is part of the system to keep Democrats in power.
Well, that’s a big resounding DUHHHH !!!
Since it’s an open thread, this seem apropos.
And then, for your viewing pleasure, the final minutes of one of, if not the best college basketball games of all time.
I remember that game. The last shot by Laettner was one of the reasons he was given a spot on the first Olympic Dream Team, not that he actually got any significant minutes during the Olympic run.