Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, July 3, 2020

Is He Threatening Overthrow Of The Country?

John Kerry: “Violent” revolution must overthrow Trump

by Frank Holmes, reporter

A former top-ranking Obama official has revealed that the Democratic Party is prepared to support a “revolution” in the streets to force Donald Trump out of office if he wins re-election this fall.

It’s a familiar face: Former Secretary of State John Kerry.

He signaled that party leaders will support a violent “revolution,” if that’s what it takes.

Kerry hedged his support for overthrowing the government by saying that Republicans are suppressing the votes of minorities.

“Certain officials of a particular party purposefully [make] it difficult for the other party to vote where they control those matters,” Kerry said during a video link to the Copenhagen Democracy Summit.

Kerry hinted that the GOP had rigged the 2000 election against Al Gore and the 2004 election — which he lost — and then cost Democrat Stacey Abrams her 2018 race for governor of Georgia against Brian Kemp. Multiple investigations into alleged voter fraud or suppression during all three elections came up empty-handed.

But Kerry said the president would bring a revolution on himself — and that America’s founders would be marching in the streets with the Democratic shock troops to overthrow the democratically elected president in 2021. “If people don’t have adequate access to the ballot, I mean that’s the stuff on which revolutions are built,” he said. “If you begin to deny people the capacity of your democracy to work, even the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, we have an inherent right to challenge that.”

Kerry added that he’s “worried” that more American votes feel like the GOP is trying to sideline their votes and are becoming “disaffected,” although it’s not clear how making baseless allegations would calm that situation.

Kerry joins a long and growing list of liberal Democrats who call for the 2016 election to be overturned, by a violet coup or uprising, if necessary. In April, former Jimmy Carter speechwriter Hendrik Hertzberg asked if it is “time for a military coup?”

The same day, a deep-pocketed venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer asked, “At what point do the Joint Chiefs of Staff just come to terms with the fact that the POTUS has lost his marbles and is insane, and just take him out?”

The assault on the presidency and democratic norms isn’t new.

One of the most outspoken supporters of the Trump impeachment, far-left Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., tweeted: “Where are our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

President Trump has turned the system upside down — Deep State operatives don’t appreciate it.

Retired Army Brigadier General Anthony Tata has warned that “deep state cabal” is trying to overthrow the president even now. One of the prime conspirators is former Obama administration official and Communist Party voter John Brennan, who said that President Trump’s actions were “nothing short of treason.” That implies Brennan believes Trump should be overthrown, or worse, Tata said. “He ran the CIA. He’s committed multiple crimes,” Tata said. “He has the network to do what he threatens.”

Simple “tweak” to your morning routine increases brain power 80% [Sponsored]

The media have tried to make Gen. Tata a laughingstock. But you don’t need top secret intelligence clearance to know high-placed people want to pry Trump out of office by any means necessary: You can read their own words.

Hollywood celebrities have also walked — or stomped on — the thin line between legal advocacy and illegal calls for insurrection.

Actor Alec Baldwin, who often carictures President Trump on Saturday Night Live, demanded that the American people “overthrow” President Trump, but he seemed to catch himself and say he meant only a peaceful uprising.

“It is time to overthrow the government of Donald Trump — not in a violent way or unlawful way — but it must be overthrown nonetheless,” he said.

Comedian Sarah Silverman went further, saying, “Once the military is with us, fascists get overthrown.” Trump, whom she called a “mad king” will “go bye bye.”

Whether alive or dead, she didn’t say.

The Democrats’ support for a violent revolution in the streets makes the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots seem even more dangerous — or possibly a sign of things to come.


Frank Holmes is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

Lockdowns Should End

The Coronavirus 

Lockdowns are Over...

And These Studies 

Really Deliver a Death 


Matt Vespa
Posted: Jul 02, 2020 4:15 PM
The Coronavirus Lockdowns are Over...And These Studies Really Deliver a Death Blow

Source: AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

I know some of you didn’t like my

 initial piece about the lockdowns. 

All I can say is that I was going 

with that the “experts” were saying 

at the time. The market was tanking. There was no real recourse, 

and then there were key reversals regarding the virus and the George

 Floyd rioting began. Some of you knew this was a crock from the 

get-go. After weeks of being told to stay inside, not be selfish, and

 prevent medical workers from being overrun, it was suddenly okay 

to go outside and riot over the officer-involved death of Floyd in 

Minneapolis on May 25. If these so-called experts could flip like that, then this virus was never a big deal from the start. We went from ‘stay inside and save lives’ to ‘what are you doing inside—go out and protest.’ Silence is violence, remember? It cannot be both. And in mere days the credibility behind the lockdowns was nuked by the very people pushing them. That’s our medical expert class, which has been infected by political wokeness. I’m done. The lockdowns are obviously over. this virus spreading on surfaces has been tweaked, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that the mortality rate doesn’t make this virus more lethal than the seasonal flu. Almost half of all deaths from this virus are from nursing homes. 

I’m reborn hardcore. The “Matt” who supported the lockdowns was evil. He’s dead. I killed him and chopped him up a la Richie Aprile in The Sopranos. Don’t eat at Satriale’s Pork Store for a bit. I’m done with the medical experts. If they didn’t know, which is obviously the case, then say that. Don’t lock us up, which gave Democratic governors the ability to arbitrarily enact draconian measures. It’s nonsense. And with every passing day, more data shows that this virus was overblown. After the Floyd riots, there were spikes in areas, where, shocker—protest activity was high. Yes, this virus is real and it’s still contagious, but death rates have not spiked to April highs. If that’s the case, I couldn’t care less about all these new cases that the media is peddling in their panic porn addiction. It’s over, clowns. The lockdowns are done. And the best part is that once the nationwide unrest, rioting, and protests were dying down, you knew the media was going to pivot and say we had to go back inside. Nope. We’re not going back inside. It’s become quite clear that the medical class who excused the non-social distancing rioting over Floyd is more concerned with their progressive bias than actual advice. In short, the medical experts are now no better than the clowns we see daily on CNN and MSNBC bashing Trump.

And as more data trickles in, the more studies are showing that lockdowns actually hurt this nation more than it benefited from them. In fact, like the CDC study on this virus’s mortality rate, it totally undercuts why we even had to stay home in the first place. In fact, maybe the first salvo in this virus being overblown was when the apocalyptic study from the Imperial College of London was proven to be total garbage. It also comes from the very liberal University of Berkeley (via WSJ) [emphasis mine]:

 In what might turn out to be the best paper on the economics of Covid-19, a team of economists from the University of California, Berkeley carefully evaluated empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved. To measure the impact of social distancing, they gathered data from cellphones on travel patterns, foot traffic in nonessential businesses, and personal interactions.

Their findings? Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion.

That finding casts major doubt on the value of lockdowns and even social distancing as a method of reducing the spread of Covid-19. While we can’t yet estimate a specific figure, the economic cost of social distancing and lockdowns will likely be more than $1 trillion.


Rather than validating draconian lockdown orders, the latest economic research on Covid-19 suggests that social-distancing efforts in general, and shelter-in-place measures in particular, have done more harm than good. That doesn’t mean that all such measures should be abandoned. “To socially distance or not to socially distance” is not the question. The question should be, what policies actually make sense?

To address that, a team of economists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently published the results of a study that compared various alternative strategies for limiting the spread of Covid-19. They concluded that twice as many lives could be saved if governments focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable people rather than squandering them on those who seem to face almost no risk, such as children.

Yeah, it’s conclusive. It’s time to re-open America—hardcore. Just don’t go into nursing homes. If you’re diabetic, fighting cancer, had an organ transplant, or are over the age of 80, maybe you should stay inside. These lockdowns are more destructive than the virus itself it would seem. Ignore CNN. Ignore the panic porn. We’re going to continue re-opening. And maybe this outbreak wouldn’t be as horrific if people, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, didn’t force nursing homes to admit COVID-positive patients. Call him the grim reaper because that policy killed thousands, the opposite of protecting the most vulnerable, which the media refuses to question on a regular basis. I wonder why? (sarc.)

Also, the death toll from COVID has dropped 90 percent since those April highs, but CNN/MSNBC will never tell you that. 

Study Shows Hydroxy Works!

New Hydroxychloroquine Study Shows Stunning Results That Counter Liberal Media Narrative

Bombshell New Study Shows Trump Was Right About Hydroxychloroquine
Volume 90%

A new study has found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients survive COVID-19 while in the hospital, countering the establishment media’s criticism of President Donald Trump when he suggested the same thing.

The study was conducted by a team at Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan and published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases on Thursday.

Researchers studied a group of 2,541 hospitalized patients and found mortality rates were substantially reduced when patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The study found that 13 percent of patients treated with just hydroxychloroquine died compared with 26.4 percent not treated with the drug.

“Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1 percent in the entire cohort, 13.5 percent in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1 percent among those receiving hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 22.4 percent among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4 percent for neither drug,” the study’s report read.

TRENDING: Fox News Fires Veteran Anchor After Sexual Misconduct Allegation

Dr. Marcus Zervos, the division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said in a news release that the study’s findings have been analyzed and peer-reviewed.

“We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring,” Zervos said.

“Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”

He added in a news conference that the drug had the most benefit when patients were treated early, CNN reported.

Do you think the mainstream media criticized the drug too early?
100% (559 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)

The use of the drug has been criticized and questioned for months.

A May 22 study posted in The Lancet used data from Surgisphere to conclude that coronavirus patients taking hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine were more likely to die in the hospital, Science reported.

Within days of study’s publication, randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine came to a stop, including part of the World Health Organization’s trial of potential COVID-19 treatments. However, the data used in that study has since been scrutinized and described as “flawed.”

When Trump began taking hydroxychloroquine as a way to prevent him from contracting COVID-19, the mainstream media and Democrats mocked him for it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the news by describing him as “morbidly obese,” while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told MSNBC the president’s announcement was “reckless.”

RELATED: Sports Pundit and Former NFL Star Dismantles 'Black Lives Matter' Movement

At CNN, Dr. Sanjay Gupta said Trump “shouldn’t be taking” the drug, while host Chris Cuomo said the announcement was a distraction.

“I know this much, I don’t know that it will help with his health, but it certainly helps to cover up his weaknesses,” Cuomo said.

On Friday, however, CNN reported these words from Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO of Henry Ford Medical Group:

“It’s important to note that in the right settings, this potentially could be a lifesaver for patients.”

Kalakanis said that while the new findings may differ from other studies, it doesn’t mean that those studies were wrong.

“What it simply means is that by looking at the nuanced data of which patients actually benefited and when, we might be able to further unlock the code of how this disease works,” he said.

“Much more work needs to be done to elucidate what the final treatment plan should be for COVID-19. But we feel … that these are critically important results to add to the mix of how we move forward if there’s a second surge, and in relevant other parts of the world. Now we can help people combat this disease and to reduce the mortality rate.”

Thursday, July 2, 2020

Of Course. Only Trump Haters Deny This

Michigan study: Hydroxychloroquine saved lives among coronavirus patients

 A Henry Ford Health System study found hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality rates among COVID-19 patients this spring. (Shutterstock image)

Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in certain sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 — and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System. 

The study, published Thursday in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, is another curve in the continued research — and its sometimes conflicting results — into whether the drug that seemed promising at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic really works.


The Henry Ford study examined outcomes of 2,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 10 and May 2 across the Michigan system’s six hospitals. Overall, 18 percent of the patients died in the hospital.

But there were marked differences in their treatment.

Among those who received hydroxychloroquine as part of early treatment, 13 percent died, compared to 26 percent of those who did not receive the drug. 

Mortality among all patients was highest among those who were older than 65, white, and were admitted with already-reduced oxygen levels. They also commonly had serious underlying diseases, including chronic kidney and lung disease.

Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health System, acknowledged that Henry Ford’s results differ from other studies.

“There’s variability in the literature on outcomes with hydroxychloroquine... What we think was important in our study was our patients were treated early. And for hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to be given before the patient suffers some of the severe immune reaction that can occur with COVID.”

That’s because the drug works by inhibiting the immune system’s inflammatory response to the virus, Zervos said. 

Stories from the front  

Bridge Magazine, Detroit Free Press and Michigan Radio are teaming up to report on Michigan hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic. We will be sharing accounts of the challenges doctors, nurses and other hospital personnel face as they work to treat patients and save lives. If you work in a Michigan hospital, we would love to hear from you. You can contact reporters Robin Erb at Bridge, Kristen Jordan Shamus at the Free Press and Kate Wells at Michigan Radio.

Patients were monitored for possible heart issues, he added, and anyone who was at risk for cardiac abnormalities was excluded from the study.  

While it is critical to use hydroxychloroquine in combination with other treatments, such as steroids, Zervos said these findings suggest the drug could be helpful in treating COVID, especially in other countries that don’t have access to the antiviral drug, Remdesiver, which may reduce illness in some COVID-19 patients.

“Many of these countries, they could be low-income settings. They don’t have access to Remdesivir. Remdesivir is going to be expensive. Hydroxychloroquine is inexpensive. So I think the drug does have a role,” Zerovos said. 

Hydroxychloroquine, sold as a generic or under the brand name Plaquenil,  is used to prevent or treat mosquito-carried malaria, as well as certain auto-immune diseases such as lupus and arthritis.

In the earliest days of the pandemic, doctors reported that some patients appeared to recover more quickly with hydroxychloroquine. The drug’s profile skyrocketed in March after Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a reference, and President Trump lauded its potential as a game-changing medication and urged patients to give it a shot. 

But scientists quickly urged caution as doctors began to report potentially deadly changes to the heart’s rhythm. In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned against use of the drug outside a closely-monitored hospital setting or clinical trial. Then last month, the FDA withdrew hydroxychloroquine sulfate and the related chloroquine phosphate from the Strategic National Stockpile for use among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Confusing matters more, two high-profile studies — including one that suggested hydroxychloroquine was unsafe — were retracted from the respected journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, after researchers questioned irregularities in the data.

A study to determine whether hydroxychloroquine may prevent COVID-19 infection is also underway at Henry Ford. The randomized, double-blinded WHIP study will examine 3,000 first responders and health care workers. There are 619 people currently enrolled.