Saturday, September 23, 2017

Do You Agree With Mohammad Ali?

A lot of people think like Mohammad Ali and I believe that there is nothing wrong with his desire to marry within his own race. On the other hand, if a man and woman of different race fall in love, and it happens, then it's up to them if they want to marry and it shouldn't concern anyone else.

Muhammad Ali Attacks Anti-White BBC Parkinson
Published on Jan 17, 2015

Race is More than Skin Color!
David Duke
Published on Aug 3, 2010
Dr. David Duke referenced "the world is flat" in a derogatory tone throughout the video but from my perspective, I believe that people should do the research (I did) and try to debunk it before disregarding it. I know, I know, it sounds like something created in a basement while playing Dungeons and Dragons by a few 14-year-old kids but one needs to overlook how crazy it sounds and watch a few videos, perhaps, read a book or two, then see where your head is at. Really, try to debunk it, if you can. Warning: That's how people come to believe in a flat earth.

Response To Hillary's Book "What Happened"! (Part 2)


CONFIRMED: Psychologists Say Hillary Clinton Is A Dangerous Sociopath
The Alex Jones Channel
Published on Sep 22, 2017

Judge Jeanine: I'll tell you what happened, Hillary
Fox News
Published on Sep 16, 2017

Hillary Clinton's Book Sucks So Bad Amazon Has to Manipulate Reviews
End Times News Report
Published on Sep 13, 2017

"What Happened??" Tucker Carlson TRASHES Hillary's Silly New Memoir
The Liberty Hound
Published on Aug 23, 2017

Social Media Shreds Hillary's New Book with Devastating Truth Bombs
Published on Jul 29, 2017
Hillary Clinton Mercilessly Roasted Over Her Book Title "What Happened"
Published on Jul 28, 2017
You devote 15 years to landing your dream job – then it goes to the worst candidate. That’s how Hillary Clinton appears to be feeling in a muddled election post-mortem shot through with barely suppressed fury
By Craig Brown
23 September 2017
Every author dreads being reviewed by an old enemy who’s out for blood. Sure enough, Hillary’s fears have just come true.
‘Crooked Hillary Clinton blames everybody (and every thing) but herself for her election loss. She lost the debates and lost her direction!’ tweeted one novice book reviewer just two days after the publication of her new book. Seconds later, the same critic tweeted a follow-up review: ‘The “deplorables” came back to haunt Hillary. They expressed their feelings loud and clear. She spent big money but, in the end, had no game!’
The reviewer was, of course, her old friend Donald J Trump. How conscientious of him to have ploughed his way through the 500-page volume, what with all those hurricanes blowing and bombs poised to drop!
Throughout the book, Hillary see-saws jerkily between sweet and sour, calm and fury
Perhaps President Trump was miffed by the impolite character sketches of himself that punctuate Hillary’s book. Among other things, he is, she tells us: a liar, mean-spirited, toweringly self-regarding, a crank, a bigot, flagrantly sexist, a puppet of the Kremlin and ‘the most dishonest candidate ever’.
She begins this book about her failed Presidential campaign and her life in the months following, by saying: ‘This is my story of what happened… how I reconnected with the things that matter most to me and began to look ahead with hope, instead of backward with regret.’
Well, yes and no. Throughout the book, Hillary see-saws jerkily between sweet and sour, calm and fury. In one paragraph, she will be cooing about spending more time with her grandchildren and finding inner calm, and then in the next she will be screaming generalised abuse and wailing that it was all so unfair.
In fact, there were times as I was reading this book when Hillary reminded me of no one so much as Catherine Tate’s character Nan, who goes from tabby cat to sabre-tooth tiger, and then back again, and all in a matter of seconds.
For instance, on page 14 she writes of the Women’s March after Trump’s inauguration and how ‘awe-inspiring it was’ to see the stirrings of a grassroots women’s movement ‘rewriting the destinies of nations’. But in the next paragraph, she delivers her first slap: ‘Yet I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, courage, and passion had been during the election.’
She goes on to claim that ‘more than two dozen women’ had approached her in the street since the election to apologise for not voting. ‘I wanted to stare right in their eyes and say, “You didn’t vote? How could you not vote? You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen at the worst possible time! And now you want ME to make YOU feel better?” ’
And then – after a long and increasingly hyperbolic list of grievances about the unfairness of the election, culminating in ‘Why did the media decide to present the controversy over my emails as one of the most important political stores since the end of World War II?’ – she suddenly comes over all cooey again, saying: ‘For all my concerns, though, watching the Women’s March, I couldn’t help but be swept up in the joy of the moment and feel the unmistakable vitality of American democracy.’
There is no punctuation mark in the book’s title: it reads What Happened rather than What Happened? or What Happened! This suggests that Hillary knows what went wrong, and is now prepared to share that knowledge with the reader…
‘I’ve spent nearly every day since November 8, 2016 wrestling with a single question: why did I lose?’ she writes. But it soon becomes clear that, ten months on, she is still in a dizzy state of befuddlement, lurching between two contradictory positions – a) blaming herself and b) blaming everyone but herself.
Of the two options, she much prefers the latter. Often, she will start off by almost saying ‘I got it wrong’, but by the end of the page she will be adding that, to be perfectly honest, she didn’t really get anything wrong at all. For instance, on page 400, a paragraph begins: ‘So, yes, I had my shortcomings as a candidate.’ But then, in the very next paragraph, she is quoting a commentator who applauded her for ‘the most effective series of debate performances in modern political history’.
Bernie Sanders is to blame; Putin is to blame. Fake news is to blame. FBI director James Comey is to blame; the media are to blame. It was all so UNFAIR and ONE-SIDED. At no point does she mention she spent almost twice as much on her campaign ($581 million) as Trump did on his ($340 million)
Even when she admits to a mistake, like calling Trump’s supporters ‘deplorables’, she goes on to um and er before concluding that, actually, what with one thing and another, she wasn’t so very wrong about it after all. Often she seems unsure whether she actually lost the election at all. I lost count of the number of times she said: ‘Don’t forget that I won the popular vote by nearly three million.’ And a good few pages are devoted to setting out in some detail what she’d now be doing if she were President, regardless of the fact that she’s not.
Self-contradictory and muddled it may be, but at least What Happened gives the reader some idea of the current state of Hillary Clinton’s mind. Needless to say, she sprinkles its pages with the homely truisms that are obligatory in American political memoirs. ‘There’s nothing quite like friendship,’ she tells us; ‘I don’t believe any of us gets through life alone.’ And: ‘I just love children – love just sitting with them and being silly.’ She concludes this particular revelation by saying: ‘If you’re ever looking for me at a party, you’re likely to find me wherever the kids are.’ To which the only valid response is: ‘Pull the other one, Hillary – it’s got bells on.’
There are also endless tales of her encounters with wise old biddies in coffee bars, who all clutch her warmly and tell her their worries and dreams. ‘And that’s been a unique privilege.’ She never stops ‘reaching out’ to people, and finding the experience ‘humbling’. Post-election, she even talks about cuddling her dogs, making stews and – ahem – catching up with the final season of Downton Abbey, which in turn reminds her of the night she spent in Buckingham Palace in 2011. ‘It was like stepping into a fairy tale.’
When Hillary talks of the ‘deep currents of anger and resentment flowing through our culture’, you feel that she may also be talking about herself
But, amid all the bonhomie, there are sudden shafts of the sort of hopeless pain any of us would feel if we had spent the past 15 or so years preparing for a job before finding it given to the most unsuitable candidate of them all. Reading the news every morning after Trump’s election was, she says, ‘like ripping off a scab’ and ‘there are times when all I want to do is scream into a pillow’. Watching Trump’s appointments on TV, ‘I nearly threw the remote control at the wall’. When she talks of the ‘deep currents of anger and resentment flowing through our culture’, you feel that she may also be talking about herself.
Perhaps the most unexpected passage in this peculiar book concerns some therapy she underwent with her yoga instructor, in order to get over the shock of the election. ‘If you’ve never done alternate nostril breathing, it’s worth a try,’ she advises. She then gives the instructions: close one nostril, exhale through the other, close both, hold your breath, and so on. According to Hillary, breathing through the right nostril allows oxygen to the side of the brain where your creativity is stored, and breathing through the left allows it to ventilate your logic. Can this be true?

I wonder what Donald would say?
Also See:

Response To Hillary's Book "What Happened"!

(Part 1)
12 September 2017

Friday, September 22, 2017

What Think Ye Of Trump's United Nations Speech?


President Trump addresses the United Nations (entire speech)
Published on Sep 19, 2017

"He was impressive" Ben Shapiro REACTS to President Trump's UN speech
50 Stars
Published on Sep 21, 2017

Rush Limbaugh: Trump gives an incredible speech at the U.N. And it's about time! (09-19-2017)
Conservative Storage
Published on Sep 20, 2017
Trump's U.N. speech shows nationalist instincts firmly intact
Jeff Mason, Steve Holland
September 19, 2017
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chalk one up for the nationalists.
Among the many signals that Donald Trump sent in his speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, one was especially clear: former chief strategist Steve Bannon’s White House departure has not muted the president’s “America First” foreign policy instincts.
Trump’s eight months in office have been characterized by a sometimes dramatic tug-of-war between “globalists” and “nationalist” advisers who have sought to move the president in myriad ways on issues both domestic and international.
Bannon’s exit last month caused some of the former New York businessman’s core supporters to fret that the more multilateral-leaning group inside the administration had gained ground.
Not on foreign policy, at least not on Tuesday.
Trump’s strident defense of national sovereignty during his debut at the annual U.N. General Assembly showed his campaign-honed policy inclinations very much intact and presented a Trump Doctrine to the world that focused unabashedly on the U.S. homeland.
”The chief nationalist in this administration is Donald J. Trump. And he knows what he’s trying to say,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a Trump supporter.
He said the speech showed that Trump had a doctrine that was defined by more than tweets, with roots in the conservative philosophies of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, France’s Charles de Gaulle, and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher.
“It’s not a one-sided American nationalism, it’s a re-centering on sovereignty that’s really, really important,” Gingrich said.
The speech, in which Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if attacked, divided Trump’s supporters and opponents. Ben Rhodes, an adviser to former Democratic President Barack Obama, said Trump was upending international order with threats of war and attacks on diplomacy.
It did not divide Trump’s often warring advisers, however, an administration official said.
“It was the most collaborative speech among the senior people in the national security cabinet that the president has given to date,” the official said.
He said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stood up after Trump’s speech and shook chief speechwriter Stephen Miller’s hand and said “you did a great job.” Miller is considered a nationalist and an ally of Bannon, while Tillerson is more globally minded.
”This was more ... Trump just being Trump,” said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign adviser, adding he thought the nationalist versus globalist tension in the administration played itself out more on domestic policy issues such as immigration policy.
The administration has given mixed signals on foreign policy, too. Gary Cohn, the president’s top economic adviser and a member of the so-called globalist wing, had to clarify with U.S. allies this week that Trump still intended to pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement unless there were a renegotiation to make it more favorable for U.S. interests.
But Trump seemed to stun some people in the United Nations hall, despite his well-known penchant for blunt talk. His speech included a condemnation of the Iran nuclear agreement reached with U.S. allies under Obama, and an observation that some portions of the world were “going to hell”.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations, said allies would interpret the speech as a sign that Trump was wary of undertaking major commitments around the world.
“Neither of the biggest problems, North Korea and Iran, can be solved by an America First, Lone Ranger policy,” he said, adding the speech showed that globalists within his administrations were “throwaways” and that Trump was still driven by nationalism.
Reporting by Jeff Mason and Steve Holland; Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by James Dalgleish
Kim Jong Un on Trump’s UN Speech: ‘He Will Face Results Beyond His Expectation’
Yesha Callahan
21 September 2017
Kim Jong Un has a few words for Donald Trump in the wake of the unpresident’s recent United Nations speech. On Tuesday, Trump stated that the U.S. would “totally destroy North Korea” and stated that Kim Jong Un could not survive an American attack. He finished his rambling by saying, “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself.”
Well, folks, Rocket Man has spoken. And let’s just say he’s not too pleased with Trump’s comments.
“Far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, [Trump] made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors,” Kim said, according to a translation by Conflict News.
“A frightened dog barks louder,” Kim continued. “I’d like to advise Trump to exercise prudence in selecting words, and to be considerate of whom he speaks to when making a speech in front of the world.” He went on:
The mentally deranged behavior of the US president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to “totally destroy” a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.
Kim continued to question Trump’s mental capacity and stated that his remarks “have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.”
Trump will “pay dearly for his speech,” he also said.
Read the full statement below:
@NBCNightlyNews via Twitter

Thanks, Trump. At this rate I won’t be alive to see Black Panther next year. 
How the Rest of the World Heard Trump's UN Speech
Even Iran, with its abysmal human-rights record, feels comfortable criticizing the U.S.
Krishnadev Calamur 
September 20, 2017
In his sovereignty-centric speech Tuesday to the UN General Assembly, President Donald Trump threatened to “totally destroy North Korea”; called Iran “a corrupt dictatorship” whose “chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos”; and said Venezuela’s government “has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country.”
The remarks have prompted the expected reactions from Iran, whose foreign minister called it an “ignorant hate speech [that] belongs in medieval times,” and Venezuela’s foreign minister, who countered: “Trump is not the president of the world ... he cannot even manage his own government.” North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons and missile programs have raised tensions with its neighbors and the U.S., called it a “dog’s bark.”
While Trump’s remarks about these countries aren’t necessarily off the mark—human rights groups have consistently cited Iran for its abysmal human-rights record; Venezuela has slid into a virtual dictatorship under Nicolas Maduro—the language the U.S. president used to express his remarks was criticized even by U.S. allies. “It was the wrong speech, at the wrong time, to the wrong audience,” Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom told the BBC. Trump’s remarks also gave countries like Iran the opportunity to criticize the U.S. at an international forum—and receive a sympathetic ear.
“Reading the text of the speech, I was struck by the extent to which the language he’s using is potentially more appropriate for schoolyard debates as opposed to what we normally see on the floor of the UN General Assembly,” Sarah Snyder, an associate professor who studies human rights at the American University’s School of International Service, told me. “Using language like ‘loser terrorists’ [as Trump did to describe terrorist groups like ISIS] strikes me as not the most compelling way to make an argument about international policy.”
Indeed, the U.S. has for years detailed human-rights abuses and religious persecution in other countries in annual reports that are angrily denounced by those countries that are named and shamed. China has gone so far as to release its own annual report specifically devoted to human rights in the U.S. (hint: it's not good), but such denunciation, Snyder said, offers strong evidence that countries like China are concerned about U.S. human-rights reports.
“For me, that’s some of the most compelling evidence that they take some of these accounting mechanisms seriously,” said Snyder, the author of the forthcoming From Selma to Moscow: How Human Rights Activists Transformed U.S. Foreign Policy.
Trump’s remarks did not mark the first time an American president, or indeed other world leader, has used the UN General Assembly to criticize another country. George W. Bush referred to the “axis of evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Hugo Chavez  compared Bush to the devil. Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe as a Filipino official criticized the Soviet Union. What makes Trump’s remarks different, Snyder said, is the “significant shift in the tone and the content of what he’s saying at the UN General Assembly.” And what Trump was saying was sovereignty was the most important element of the global order.
“We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch,” Trump said. He added: “Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.”
As my colleague Uri Friedman wrote
Donald Trump inverted the argument: Contemporary challenges, he told the world leaders assembled in New York, are best tackled by self-interested states that work together when and where their interests overlap.
That’s a marked departure from how foreign policy has been conducted by Western countries since the end of World War II when the U.S. and its allies have intervened to stop humanitarian crises in various parts of the world. Snyder told me Trump’s “repeated defense of sovereignty and sovereign rights of nations will signal to repressive governments that the United States is no longer going to be paying attention to human-rights violations that are happening within a country’s borders.”
“I think the other thing that really struck me that seemed to be quite different—particularly thinking about the rhetoric of someone like George W. Bush—was [Trump’s] emphasis on preserving American rights, but saying nothing about protecting the rights of others,” Snyder said. “And that to me seemed to be a significant shift.”
Russia certainly noticed. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Associated Press that Trump’s message was “the U.S. would not impose its way of life on others.” “I think it’s a very welcome statement,” he said, “which we haven’t heard from an American leader for a very long time.”
KRISHNADEV CALAMUR is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees news coverage. He is a former editor and reporter at NPR and the author of Murder in Mumbai.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

NASA Is Lying To You!


Flat Earth - The Age of Deception is Over
Published on Mar 15, 2017

Everything You Know About NASA Is Wrong - An In Depth Study
Published on Jul 28, 2016
The Biggest Lie of All NASA lies!
Erik Verbeek
Published on Feb 23, 2016
Dunedin flat earth sign goes viral
Otago Daily Times
Thursday, 21 September 2017
A sign planted at a Dunedin beach claiming to prove the earth is flat has been covered by news outlets across the world.
Dunedin man Stephen Voss spotted the sign, which questions why the horizon out to sea is "level" and points people towards a YouTube video claiming to prove the earth is flat, while walking to Lawyers Head.
He posted  a picture of the sign on Facebook and saying "it appears that the flat earth society have infiltrated St Kilda".
"Funny how they equate doing research with watching YouTube videos!"
Since he put the post up last week it has been picked up by news outlets across the world, including The Sun, The Daily Mail, LADBible and IFLScience.
Most commenting on the post by Mr Voss riduculed those who believed the earth is flat, but a few defended the theory, including one person who said "what you believe has only been pushed on the masses since Nasa was formed at the end of WW2".
The video the sign's author suggests people view is titled "200 Flat Earth Proofs", runs for two hours, and claims to debunk the "mother of all conspiracies" and prove the earth is flat.

More and more people are starting to wonder, "Flat earth, really?" and many try to debunk it before becoming believers. See Below.
The world IS flat’ Brit mum-of-4 fighting to expose the 'lie’ that Earth is ROUND
A BRITISH mum is leading the world’s charge in exposing the “lie” that the Earth is round.
By Oliver Pritchard
Published 21st September 2017
'THE WORLD IS FLAT': Brit mum-of-4 fighting to expose the 'lie’ that Earth is ROUND
Karen Michelle, 54, passionately thinks the conventional belief that the world is a globe is a lie spread by NASA and governments to control people.
The domestic cleaner and mother-of-four spends up to 15 hours a day spreading the “truth” as a flat earth campaigner on her online blog.
Karen, of Thatcham, Berks, said: “I feel I have got a mission right now and my mission is to help the world to realise that we live on a flat spiritual realm.
“People are waking up (to realise the world is flat). It is starting. People are meeting in public like a community.
“This time last year you might have found one or two tiny groups meeting up.
“This year you find groups meeting up all the time in the UK. For some reason it has really kicked off here.”
Karen believes the world is flat and is surrounded by a large expanse of water to the north and Antarctica to the south.
She claims that the stars are only 15 miles away, we have never been to space, gravity doesn’t exist and earth is at the centre of the universe.
NASA and the world’s governments have know this since the 1960s but chose to lie to people to stop them exploring further, she says.
The long-standing conspiracy theorist became a flat Earther 18 months ago, after having a bet with her mate that she could “debunk” the concept.
But after watching videos online she was “instantly convinced” the world is flat.
Since then she had created Sun and Moon, a Facebook and YouTube group, which has more than 2,000 members, with more flocking to it every day.
Her videos garner 10,000s of views each and she is constantly inundated with messages from fellow flat earthers and people wanting to learn about it.
She said: “They are lying about going into space. They could have told us we were flat then (in the 1960s).
“They are lying to divert us away from the truth.
“We (flat earthers) are doing this for all the world to set people free.”
When the Daily Star visited Karen this week she demonstrated two experiments which “prove” the world is flat and gravity doesn’t exist.
In one she spin a wet tea towel above her head. She claims that if gravity existed the water wouldn’t come out.
In another she placed water in a cup and said the fact it sat level proved the world was flat.
She also claimed that if we were travelling around the Sun at 67,000mph you would notice it.
“Why when you go outside sometimes is there no wind. How can that happen if we’re travelling at MAC 80 (270,000mph)?” she said.
Image result for flat earth
'Oh No, Sammy Watkins Also Thinks the Earth is Flat'
Daniel Rapaport
Wednesday September 20th, 2017
I can't believe I'm writing another story about an athlete who believes the Earth is flat, but dammit, athletes keep on believing the Earth is flat!
Sammy Watkins is the latest to subscribe to the ludicrous theory that the earth is flat, despite pictures of the earth and air travel being a thing and a ridiculously overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is spherical.
Lindsey Thiry of the Los Angeles Times tweeted the frustrating news on Tuesday night.
Kyrie Irving brought this belief, which has been comprehensively debunked to the point where it doesn't deserve addressing anymore, back to the forefront when he said he believes the Earth is flat back in February. Draymond Green, who is a smart person, then inexplicably voiced his support for questioning the Earth's shape at the All-Star break, citing his ability to take a curved picture as evidence. Recently, young Boston Celtic Jaylen Brown revealed that he thinks Irving has a point and looks forward to discussing the controversy with Irving.
At first, this was kind of funny. But children look up to these athletes and take their word as truth, so more and more athletes voicing this B.S. belief means more and more minds corrupted with this total hogwash. (debunk it then, Daniel Rapaport)
Jaylen Brown is already excited to discuss flat-Earth theories with Kyrie Irving
By: Andrew Joseph
September 19, 2017
We’re not going to re-litigate long-established scientific facts because there’s already been plenty of that, but Kyrie Irving should plan on arguing his flat-Earth case with his new teammates this season.
The Celtics guard confused a lot of people when he appeared to seriously argue that the Earth is flat and double down on the claim. Fans weighed in on the controversy, ranging from current and former NBA players to astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Everyone had a say on the matter.
Well, the Celtics’ Jaylen Brown personally can’t wait to hear Irving’s theory out.
Brown was holding back laughter for most of his response, but he didn’t exactly commit to either side of the argument.
Brown said, jokingly (we hope):
“I’m not yet ready to make my comment or statement on that. But as my eyes have told me, the world may appear to be flat. Kyrie may very well have a point. So, we’ll see.”
The madness must be stopped.
Jimmer Fredette's fantastic signature shoe will make Lonzo Ball jealous.
Jimmer Fredette didn't have much success in the NBA, but in China he became a star. After averaging 37.6 points per game and winning MVP, Fredette released his own signature shoe. Chinese shoe brand 361 Degrees released the new kicks on Monday to an extremely positive reception. While the price is yet revealed, these shoes look like they'll rival the Big Baller Brands.
Was Kyrie Irving’s ‘flat Earth theory’ one big ploy for attention?
Irving went viral after his flat Earth theory made waves on social media. Maybe it’s what he wanted all along.
by Kristian Winfield  
Sep 1, 2017
Kyrie Irving famously said he believes the Earth is flat. We know that spurred on a never-ending meme.
But did his motivation for perpetuating that belief stem from a lack of attention?
In his introductory press conference with the Celtics on Friday, Irving said his appreciation for the world “goes deeper than a lot of people realize.” Up until his flat-Earth theory made the rounds on social media, few knew what was going on in his mind.
But according to Joe Vardon of, Irving’s desire to express himself was nothing new. Irving always wanted to say something about different social issues. Media members, though, only wanted LeBron James’s opinion, which bugged Irving.
When Irving popped up on The Road Trippin’ podcast with Richard Jefferson and Channing Frye during the All-Star break, he broke social media with his belief of a flat Earth versus a round one. His stance went viral in a matter of moments, giving the 25-year-old more off-court attention than he’d gotten in the past.
It sounds like that was the whole point.
Then, and only then, did he make it on national TV for a reason not relating to sports:
Was it Irving’s master plan all along to relay a ridiculous view he never believed on purpose? Was it simply one big ploy for attention directed at the media and public who buzzed around James only?
We’ll never know. The one thing we know for sure: It worked. Irving’s flat Earth comments certainly got him attention, for better or worse.

Celebrities telling the truth about the Flat Earth Compilation
Divine Divide
Published on Mar 25, 2017
Also See:

More Info on NASA, Satellites, and the Moon!

15 June 2017

The Elite are Psychotic! Class Warfare is Our Only Chance!

20 May 2017
18 May 2017

Why Did Alex Jones Delete This Interview From Infowars?

02 May 2017
02 May 2017

(Part 4)

21 May 2017

Do These NASA Pictures of the Earth Look Real to You?

01 May 2017

Air Flights Make Sense on a Flat Earth!

27 April 2017

Flat Earth? Reptilians? What Do You Think?

16 February 2017