Tag Archives: Democracy

The mother of all definitions

Everybody and their dog speak of political correctness, yet, not many (not even the politicians and their hacks) are able to provide an all-encompassing definition of it.

Whatever suits them becomes the definition of the day (in today’s world commanded by speed and speed alone, of the second).

And yet, there exists a brilliant description that meets all of the possible requirements needed to make it a definition.

Here it is: political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

According to alleged eyewitnesses, this one is 75 years old, written by then-president of the United States, Harry S. Truman.

There were supposedly four telegrams exchanged between General Douglas MacArthur and Truman, his commander-in-chief, on the day before the actual signing of the WWII Surrender Agreement in Japan, September 1, 1945.

Now, in reality, there were not, but the texts (they have been circulating on the world-wide web since at least a decade and a half ago) are funny.

The next few paragraphs include the messages as they have been circulating.

The contents of those four telegrams below are exactly as received at the end of the war – not a word has been added or deleted!

(1) Tokyo, Japan 08:00-September 1, 1945.
To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D A MacArthur
Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?

(2) Washington, D C 13:00-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur
From: H S Truman
Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press, because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!

(3) Tokyo, Japan 16:30-September 1, 1945
To: H S Truman
From: D A MacArthur and C H Nimitz
Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?

(4) Washington, D C 21:20-September 1, 1945
To: D A MacArthur/C H Nimitz
From: H S Truman
Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!

Here’s the first problem: the expression, ‘mainstream media,’ is so frightfully new, not even Truman, who could see far ahead, could imagine its existence.

Too bad the real author has never come forward. To collect her/his well-deserved royalties, at least.

The second problem can be described as a minor technicality: the Truman Library and Museum’s reply to a question about the exchange by an Internet user earlier this year:

Greetings from the Truman Library,

Thank you for your question! This purported exchange of telegrams between General Douglas MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman does not exist at the Truman Library. One of the ways you can tell this exchange is not accurate is that they have Chester Nimitz’s middle initial wrong – his middle initial is W, not H. The “telegrams” contain other terms that did not exist in Truman’s time, such as “mainstream media,” and terms that military officers of MacArthur’s rank would not have used in official communications. It also suggests a level of camaraderie and familiarity between General MacArthur and President Truman that certainly did not exist.

What a pity

Still, even though not coined by Harry S. Truman, the definition sticks.

A very recent opinion piece published by the Salt Lake City Tribune proves that some people still haven’t heard that just as a woman can’t be pregnant only in part, so a society cannot be based on democracy and socialism at the same time.

History has shown that this arrangement doesn’t work, and yet, some people still believe that the failed idea can be made to work somehow, if only we tried hard enough.

The three men whom the Salt Lake City Tribune identifies as James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn claim they’ve seen the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not an oncoming train, it is the first rays of the bright future named socialism.

They open their diatribe by saying (verbatim): “Socialism” is currently a hot-button word that is too often misused.

Of course, nothing is easier than interpreting a politician’s words in a way he might and might not have meant them.

To prove their point, the Salt Lake City Tribune trio use a Truman Library and Museum’s recording of a speech Truman gave in Syracuse, New York, in 1952, when he was supporting then-Democratic Party’s presidential candidate Adlai Stephenson.

For the record: no matter how hard Truman tried to denigrate the other (Republican) party candidate, Dwight David Eisenhower, the general would win. Stephenson would come to the White House only when invited by a current incumbent.

The trio are trying to explain that socialism is, in fact, a benign idea that only helps the wide masses of people. They select a few words from the conclusion of the Truman speech. He didn’t like it that the Republicans would call most (if not all) of Democratic Party ideas of enhancing government role in national economy ‘socialist.’

Of course, Truman could not know at the time that his predecessor Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal would be hanging like a mill stone around the neck of America within just a few decades. But he could (or should) have known that Italy’s fascist Duce (leader) Benito Mussolini admired Roosevelt’s persistent socialization of the U.S., and the FDR had to send a special envoy to Rome to ask the fascist supremo to at least tone down his public accolades addressed at Roosevelt and all his works. It is quite possible Truman was aware of this incident, but no real proof exists.

In any case, the Salt Lake Tribune writers, James Smithson, Richard Saltzman and James Glenn, could have known it, too. If only they did their homework.

The trio present their personal stories that, they write with all seriousness, helped them along the way to “see that if government partnerships to promote public goods are what we are calling socialism, then a little well-placed socialism might be a good thing.”

And: “We shouldn’t be so quick to assume that socialism is always a bad thing.”

They conclude that socialism does not result in a loss of freedom, undermining individual productivity. It does not necessarily lead people down a dangerously slippery slope to communism.


Had they done their homework on Harry S. Truman a bit more thoroughly, they would have known that he was throwing those soothing words about socialism out because of electioneering.

Truman fought socialism on the world stage with commendable vigour. The Marshall Plan, intended to help restore Europe devastated by war, his Truman Doctrine that was supposed to contain Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War, and many other measures are proof that he knew the socialist danger.

In today’s world, apologists for socialism are apologists for violence, discrimination, racism (what else are the Black Lives Matter groups than bands of illiterate racists?), and general mayhem that would end up destroying civilization that we fought so hard to achieve.

It is a pity that Harry S. Truman didn’t write these unforgettable words defining political correctness.

Still, it would be useful to remember them.

Political correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!


A megalomaniac? A criminal? A puppet? Or all three?

Who the hell is Klaus Martin Schwab, the guy who claims to be holding the keys to the future of the world?

Claiming the world is ready for what he calls the Great Reset, he had the World Economic Forum, the strange outfit that he had founded (together with his wife Hilde) decades ago, sell all of its stocks and bonds. Not only that, the Forum did so ahead of everyone else.

Just what did he know that most of the rest of the world had not been aware of?

A curious look

Available data show Klaus Martin Schwab’s curriculum vitae in a rather admirable light: a doctorate in economics (summa cum laude, comparable with honours) from Switzerland’s ancient University of Fribourg, an engineering doctorate from ETH Zürich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), and, to make him look even more rounded, a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Of course, an honourary professorship at the China Foreign Affairs University may stain the picture somewhat in some people’s eyes, but that, to Schwab and his coterie, matters not.

Many of his admirers think Schwab wrote the two of the bibles of world-changing revolutions, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016) and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018). Alas, not really: a World Economic Forum employee named Nicholas Davis wrote them both.

A busy beaver

More often than not, people have issues with beavers’ engineering projects. Here, they flood a field, there, they make a river impassable.

A headache, that’s what they are.

Compare Klaus Schwab’s activities with those of the beaver population around the world. The native of the German Upper Swabia city of Ravensburg has been all over the world, creating all kinds of what he calls dynamic global communities that consist of exceptional people (they must be under 40) with the vision, courage and influence to drive positive change in the world (his own literature words).

The age restriction is important: younger people are more susceptible to cheap sloganeering.

The impact of Ravensburg’s annual festival, Rutenfest (literally: birch whip celebration) must have made a huge impact on Klaus Schwab’s thinking.

The same year he started with the World Economic Forum in 1971, he published what he views as one of his scientific masterpieces: Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering (Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau). Management of a modern enterprise, Schwab wrote, must serve not only its shareholders but all of its stakeholders (die Interessenten), too. Otherwise, it won’t achieve long-term growth and prosperity.

Of course, the stakeholders were defined rather vaguely, but that’s not the point. The point is that Schwab’s argument leads nowhere but to socialism (in either of its shapes, such as national socialism, social democracy or communism).

Schwab claims that the World Economic Forum exists as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, whatever that is supposed to mean. According to him, the world needs a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.

So, this is the guy who claims that the world needs what he calls a Great Reset.

Here’s one example of what he has in mind.

That he himself sits on various business companies’ boards (collecting fees from each and every one of them) helps his private bank account but, also, his untiring efforts to re-shape the world. He used to sit on the infamous Bilderberg Group’s steering committee, too: that’s the group that was formed after 1945, with its stated goal to help enhance the dialogue between Europe and North America. Its objectives would develop into outright globalization (under one government, potentially).

Inquisitive minds need to know

As mentioned, the World Economic Forum sold all its stocks and bonds. What shocked many was that it did so ahead of everyone else.

As Armstrong Economics pointed out, Schwab has exploited the so-called Covid-19 virus within weeks of its appearance, using it as a springboard to launch his vision for the Great Reset.

Armstrong Economics is a serious organization of economists who know how to ask the right questions, and asking them.

Armstrong Economics describes it as a “highly likely man-made virus” and adds that it was “also highly likely to have been leaked in China deliberately by another group with a personal agenda involving climate change.”

The result, in a summary: world economy shut down, the world oil reserves increased by three years, over 300 million jobs destroyed as collateral damage.

Armstrong Economics compares the fear tactics used now to gain power to what the Nazis (and one would add: Communists) used to do with so much success.

The outcome: world’s population reduced to sheep being led to slaughter.

Schwab revealed his intentions in his new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset.

Obviously, he doesn’t plan to earn much on royalties: this piece of pure propaganda dirt is available for free online.

Wilful ignorance?

It is not known how much did Klaus Schwab learn about he history of economy.

It seems not much.

Herewith a reminder of some relevant events: it took 26 years to get over the effects of what used to be known the Great Depression of the 19th century.

Historians would later rename it Long Depression, after the 1929 crash developed into a new Great Depression.

Historians say that introduction of railroads would wreak havoc on the basic structure of transportation, displacing jobs involving horses and carts. That, they deduce, was the main cause of the Long Depression.

The origin of the Great Depression of the 20th century is somewhat more involved.

Historians claim that it was the collapse in agriculture that would help cause it.

Something to it: agriculture had employed about 40 per cent of the workforce at the turn of the 20th century. Combustion engine that would lead to tractors helped cut the need for manual labour. Besides, the natural disaster that would become known as Dust Bowl increased unemployment to about one-quarter of available workforce.

In addition, U.S. government took to micromanaging the country’s economy during the First World War, and it had terrible difficulties leaving it well enough alone (frankly speaking, it never quite succeeded: see FDR’s New Deal and the quick emergence of the all-encompassing atmosphere of entitlement that has shockingly survived to this day).

Sadly, it had to take the Second World War to restore the economy. As Armstrong Economics indicates, the war helped absorb the excess agricultural labour, forcing many former farm hands to become qualified.

Schwab hopes people don’t know how to think independently. He ignores evidence proves all this talk about man-made climate change is pure nonsense.

The only question that remains is: is he that megalomaniacal as to become criminal all by himself, or is he dancing to somebody else’s tune?

And, if the latter holds, to whose tune?

Kamala Harris lets her cat out of the bag

Americans are getting ready to turn their TVs (or computers) on: candidate debates ahead of the November 3 presidential elections are coming up. They promise to become a perfectly scandalous farce.

The incumbent, president Donald Trump, has just received another weapon that could help him in his struggle with former president Barack Hussein Obama’s vice-president Joe Biden: just ask the challenger to promise that, should he be still alive, Biden would stay in office throughout his term.

Why? Because Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, spoke of a Harris (not Biden) administration in a recent question-and-answer session.

True, Harris quickly corrected herself, but nobody bought that. Not even after her apologists claimed that it was just a “slip of the tongue.” A number of people said they preferred to call it a “Freudian slip.”

Considering not only Trump supporters call Harris “nothing more than a Trojan horse for the radical left,” it has become a must for president Trump to start badgering his opponent with the question of his staying power.

One of the most influential black Americans, Wayne Dupree, is convinced that it was neither a slip of her tongue, nor a Freudian slip: it was a signal of Harris’s real intentions.

Dupree has president Trump’s ear: he used to serve as a board member of his National Diversity Coalition. An eight-year U.S. Air Force veteran, Dupree is a living proof (as if any was needed) of the fact that any black American can succeed, if only they work at it.

Voices from hell?

Dupree sees Hillary Clinton’s hand behind the plan: Biden retires shortly after signing his oath on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Harris, as the popular American cliché has it, just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, takes over. She names Hillary Clinton her vice-president. Let’s leave what happens next in Nature’s hands (let’s keep all Gods out of this). With the history of unusual demises and unfortunate accidents in the wake of the Clinton couple’s path, everything is possible.

Wayne Dupree also reminds us of Kamala Harris’s entry into the presidential conversation. She threw her hat into the rink of Democratic Party nominations, and could have hardly lost worse than she had. She would have received fewer than two per cent of the votes available in the primaries. She got out when the getting was still good, and decided there must be other ways.

This understudy trick she (and her comrades) developed is nothing new. The brazenness of it all is.

Except, Dupree argues, Hillary Clinton’s shadow has been all over the shady picture of current Democratic Party politics (or politicking) all along. As Dupree puts it very eloquently, Hillary Clinton has been the backstage puppet master running the campaign, and “using cognitively challenged Biden as a friendly mask to hide the true ugliness beneath.”

Of course, Kamala Harris’s pronouncements sound like carbon copies of Bernie Sanders’s program: in addition to her own co-sponsorship of what she calls the Green New Deal, Harris is all in to start Medicare-for-all, decriminalize illegal border crossings, and institute gun buybacks.

The only difference: Sanders unashamedly says he is a socialist, while Harris, just as unashamedly, says she is not.

As Dupree argues, there’s one more angle: it looks as if the Democratic Party was convinced a presidential ticket has no chance in hell of winning without a man on it, and, in particular, without a man on top of it.

If he’s right, all women should vote for anybody but the Democratic Party ticket.

Of course, there’s one more thing to look at: since that fateful night in November 2016, when the Electoral College votes had been counted and the other side won, the Democratic Party has been spewing only hatred, throwing one tantrum after another, coming up with imaginary scandals that all turned out to be fake. All that instead of coming up with positive proposals that would make sense. And, also, instead of rejecting everything the current president had been suggesting to help the widest spectrum of society.

Will they remember?

How many Americans will not forget the Democratic Party’s silent support of all the looting and rioting that has been ravaging their country remains to be seen. Some cynics suggest that a smart operative within Trump’s inner circle must have invented both Antifa and the Black Lives Matter, considering the damage they seem to have done to Democratic Party’s hopes of winning.

Vast majority of Americans want law and order. That’s what Trump has been offering repeatedly, while Biden and company have not.

In Dupree’s view, the Obama clan picked Kamala Harris to run for president. Why they picked her, Dupree does not say, but he seems to have inside knowledge.

As she failed so miserably, they turned to plan B, and that’s the one she revealed with her slip, and who cares whether it was intended or not.

It is doubtful whether the mainstream news media will be asking Kamala Harris about her admission of her goals.

It seems it will be left to president Trump himself to ask his challenger. The question can be simple and straightforward: Joe, are you promising to stay in the office till your term is over? Make it biblically simple: yes yes, no no.

Just make sure the answer is audible and binding.

Provided Biden does not forget to turn on the earpiece through which his advisers would whisper the words they want him to utter.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

Comrade Josef Goebbels would have been proud, and so would have been comrade Mikhail Suslov. The former was German Führer Adolf Hitler’s propaganda chief, the latter served several top Communist leaders in the Soviet Union as their ideology boss.

They both would have watched with considerable admiration (and envy) a recent broadcast on one of Canada’s major sports television networks.

The Minnesota Vikings of the U.S. National Football League (NFL) were opening their home season, playing a game against the Green Bay Packers. The players, plus sundry organization members, stood at attention, and the network’s female news anchor, facing the camera, said they were remembering the murder of one George Floyd and protesting against police brutality.

George Floyd’s family members also attended, she announced, forgetting conveniently that these are the people who had profited from George Floyd’s death quite handsomely, having started a GoFundMe campaign that brought home millions of dollars.

Whether the news anchor was not aware of the facts, or whether she was, leads only to a few questions about her own motivation.

If she was not aware of the facts, she should not be in the business of journalism: not doing one’s homework is a cardinal sin in this trade.

If she was aware and still decided to lie through her teeth, it brings up another two possibilities: either she is an ideologically-driven moron, or she heard from her bank that she is awfully short on funds to pay down her mortgage.

Needless to say that none of these three options is acceptable.

Facts first

George Floyd was a violent criminal. One of his previous convictions involved participation in an armed robbery during which he had held a loaded gun against the stomach of a very visibly pregnant woman.

The news anchor who used the word murder with her eyes blazing with anger, happens to be a mother, too.

Can she not imagine the feelings of another woman whose living quarters are being robbed at gunpoint, and whose as yet unborn baby’s life is in at least as much danger as her own life? Can she not imagine how this kind of a shock must have scarred that female victim’s life for the rest of her days? Can she not imagine what impact this cruel experience would have on the child?

George Floyd, in his last escapade, was being apprehended for committing yet another crime: trying to pay for a purchase with fake money. While quite obviously under the influence of drugs, he resisted arrest. He did not die because of the police officer’s action, no matter how harsh it was. Heart failure due to drug overdose was the real cause, even though his lawyer would later try to have this verdict amended.

Yes, an argument could be made that George Floyd was not aware the money was fake. Except: in that case, any innocent person would peacefully follow the officer all the way to the police station and have his/her lawyer sort it out. If her/his innocence was established, s/he would rightfully expect an apology and some kind of restitution for time lost and the embarrassment an incident like this could have caused.

With George Floyd’s record, some might say, his claim of innocence would be a tad dubious, but he never allowed the situation to get to the point where it could have been argued, never mind established.

As shocking as shocking gets

This particular broadcast (and a similar broadcast on the other major Canadian sports television network) was also filled with admiration when reporting on other NFL games that particular night.

Adulation dripping from their voices, the broadcasters described how the players showed their unity in their fight for justice and other signs of equality by disrespecting their national anthem by either kneeling instead of taking their helmets off and standing at attention, or by not leaving their dressing rooms until after the anthem was finished.

Considering all these athletes live and work in a country that has no issues with them making gobs of money for a few weeks’ worth of work a year, playing a violent game that can be best described as bastardized rugby football, those players’ rigorous outrage is worse than hypocritical.

Yes, bastardized rugby football. Real rugby players (and, speaking of that, Aussie-rules football players, also) do not wear any of the body armour U.S. footballers have got used to. And yet, real rugby players (and, speaking of that, Aussie-rules football players, also) have never in their lives seen the amounts their U.S. colleagues earn in a single season.

Now what?

Bastardized rugby football is not the point, though.

The point is much more straightforward (and much more complicated). The black Americans’ welfare is in the hands of black Americans themselves. Everybody seems to have forgotten that quite a few black Americans have advanced their standing in society simply by getting good education and working hard. They would not succumb to the temptations offered by the so-called atmosphere of entitlement. They just have been working hard.

That’s the simple part.

The atmosphere of entitlement is nothing new. Americans have then-president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to thank for it.

Enacted between the years of 1933 and 1939 to fix the impact of the Great Depression that, itself, had been caused by government’s meddling in the country’s national economy, New Deal basically said: no need to worry, your loving government will provide. At a cost, of course: the government provides, the citizens obey and do whatever the government tells them to do.

This scandalous abuse of basic economic laws has been going on at least 81 years. No wonder way too many people got used to it.

But now, real life has presented the bill. And the question reads: who’s going to foot it?

Tougher to answer than Hamlet’s to be or not to be.

America is still the world’s power Nr. 1. Where America goes, the world goes.

The Americans better answer right.

Joe Biden’s long and winding road takes another turn

A few decades ago, American archaeologists found a piece of copper wire under the sandy hills somewhere in the Nevada desert. They summoned journalists to a news conference to announce that their ancestors millennia ago used telephones.

Not to be outdone, Russian archaeologists dug through the sands of the Kara-Kum desert. They found nothing. So, they summoned journalists to a news conference: their ancestors millennia ago used wireless communications.

Sounds just like the account describing ex-U.S. vice-president and now Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden’s visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Here’s what he said: “a black guy invented the lightbulb, not a white guy named Edison.”

So far as Joe Biden is concerned, teaching of history lacks representation.

Something to it, actually. But not in the sense Joe Biden considers important.

In Joe Biden’s view, here’s what’s happening: “Why in God’s name don’t we teach history in history classes? A black man invented the light bulb. Not a white guy named Edison. … There’s so much. Did anybody know?”

And, he added, American history classes are silent on events such as a massacre that happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, as well as the destruction of the Black Wall Street in Greenwood, Oklahoma.

That’s Joe Biden’s view. So long as he remembers it, he stands by it.

Facts first

Black American inventor Lewis Howard Latimer worked on the development of both the light bulb and the telephone.

According to his official biography, Latimer, while a member of Thomas Edison’s elite research team, improved the light bulb his employer had patented in 1880.

The original prototype for the light bulb was lit by a glowing electrified filament made of paper. That, alas, would burn out with all speed.

Latimer’s filament was made of carbon, a much more durable material. He sold the patent for the Incandescent Electric Light Bulb with Carbon Filament to the United States Electric Company in 1881.

Latimer’s patents include a process to make the carbon filament production not only efficient, but effective, too. He also developed the threaded socket for the improved bulb.

In 1890, he would publish the first book on electric lighting, titled Incandescent Electric Lighting, as well as supervising the installation of public electric lights throughout New York, Philadelphia, Montreal, and London.

No mean achievements, those, but they still fall short of Joe Biden’s proclamations.

Propaganda wars

Just as Joe Biden’s preaching about the authorship of the electrical bulb, the Russians had their hero who, they claimed, outran the Americans by a country mile. The backward Tsarist regime, the Russian propaganda line insists, prevented their countryman’s well-deserved victory.

They have been lying through their teeth, just as Joe Biden has.

Pavel Nikolayevich Yablochkov (Павел Николаевич Яблочков), a Russian electrical engineer and businessman, invented a contraption a.k.a. the Yablochkov candle (some kind of an electric carbon arc lamp) and the transformer.

(Traditional Soviet propaganda used to paint Yablochkov as a poor serf, whose life depended on his owner’s largesse.)

The Yablochkov candle eliminated the mechanical complexity of competing lights that required a regulator to manage the voltaic arc.

Yablochkov would build an industrial sample of the “electric candle” while in Paris, and he had it patented there in 1876.

Both Latimer and Yablochkov were multi-talented men.

In addition to his success in the field of electricity and telecommunications, Lewis Howard Latimer invented the first toilet for railroad carriages (don’t use it while the train is stopped at the station) and what would later become the air conditioner.

Stretching the truth

There were some who claimed that Latimer, while working as a draftsman and assistant for Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, was the guy who had actually invented the telephone. Latimer himself went to court to confirm for the record that Bell’s authorship had been unassailable, much to the chagrin of those who put the colour of Latimer’s skin on the pedestal, disregarding facts.

Biden seems to have hopped into the same boat Al Gore, his U.S. vice-presidential predecessor and forerunner in presidential candidacy used to sail (both in the Democratic Party colours).

Losing candidate Gore used to claim he had invented the Internet. Who cares about the Arpanet? A forerunner of the Internet, the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network was the first wide-area packet-switching network with distributed control and one of the first networks to implement the TCP/IP protocol. (Short for transmission control protocol/Internet protocol, TCP/IP is a set of rules – protocols – governing communications among all computers on the Internet.) That’s what would become the technical foundation of the Internet. It was the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defence that had come up with the idea in the late 1960s.

And one wonders whether Al Gore remembers the name Tim Berners-Lee, a British mathematician who came up with what is now known as the world-wide web, and the HTML (hyper-text markup language).

Today’s Democratic Party candidate has had his facts mixed up a tad: Latimer’s improvements made the use of Edison’s light bulb available to all and sundry.

That, in and of itself, would guarantee Lewis Howard Latimer his immortality.

He didn’t need Joe Biden’s twisted account to pump his tires.

%d bloggers like this: