1/21/25:
This post has a familiar ring to it, so I'm re-posting this response to the Insty post.
Do people actually give a rat's rear end? If they did, maybe this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. Even when their neighborhood burns down, do they care? I wonder about that. I really do.
Quick update: People reading this may not understand what the hell I'm referring to. The insty post was about how the previous administration and the Democrats suppressed the truth about Biden's condition. That's why I wrote that they didn't give a flip. Even if that meant that they were endangering themselves as well as everyone else. They just didn't care, and they said just as much themselves.
9/30/24:
I can see both sides of this argument as the drama unfolded.
It seems like these days with the election and all, there really be a lot of people who won't do anything because they just don't care.
Then there's the guy who is standing alone against the bad guys, and nobody wants to help.
I tell you I can see both sides of this.
So what about today? Do people really give a shit? Maybe not. It sure seems that way a lot more often that you'd like to believe. I'd like to believe the way John Wayne depicted in his movie "The Alamo". The part where he gave the Flaca speech was his own viewpoint put into cinema. John Wayne thought that "High Noon" was un-American. He wanted to believe that people had some good in them.
If people let bad shit happen, then how good can they be? People could have stopped Hitler before he plunged the world into World War II, but did nothing. Maybe they were lying the same way they lie now. Or was it something similar to this movie? They just don't give a shit.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Has the Storm Arrived?
Brian C. Joondeph ( At the American Thinker ): In my last column, I wrote about the new Independence Day, Jan. 20. This is when a corrupt and tyrannical administration exits Washington, D.C., for Delaware beaches or unwatchable and dying left-wing cable news shows. Such a housecleaning is long...
Comment:
When the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 stormed through, it left a lot of dead bodies. Let us hope that this not that kind of storm that is being referred to here.
If Trump wants to acquire Greenland, he needs to act immediately
Shawn Hodges at American Thinker: At a hearing in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday to consider Fox News host Pete Hegseth's candidacy for defense secretary, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) asked him a provocative question: whether Hegseth would approve of the use of force to capture Greenla...
Comment:
Maybe it would turn out like Alaska, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Blanket pardons
This is a bit worrisome to me. Sure, I can see it with the J6th people. There may be a few who shouldn't get one, but by and large, this was a set up. The charges were trumped up ( no pun intended ) in order to make it all seem far worse than it really was. Not to mention that the J6'ers were classified more or less as traitors, which was unjust to an extreme.
A long process in order to truly and fairly determine guilt was simply not reasonable. This has already been 4 years, and the party in charge doesn't want to fully and fairly explore what really happened on that day. It's probably because it wouldn't help the narrative that they tried to sell. I'd say that they were unsuccessful in their sales job for their narrative. It is therefore, mostly a pointless exercise to do that now, except for the part in what has up to this point BEEN HIDDEN.
Democrats are hoping to sell themselves as victims ( or probable victims ) of Trump. Biden's blanket pardons will shield them from any legal consequences for their behavior, but the sob story as victims is a bit too much, even for them. They are definitely not victims here. They weren't potential victims. They are definitely suspects in major crimes, and the whole point of these blanket pardons was to sheild them from the proper and just application of the laws.
Of course, the tit-for-tat nature of these pardons may enable the Democrats to claim some sort of equivalence here.
Moreover, we now have the precedence set for more of these in the future. It is almost as if a bad actor can take over and toss the law aside and do whatever comes to mind without regard for consequences. This is dangerous. We're drifting into a danger zone here. I sure hope these people in charge understand that, but since almost half of them are Democrats, I'm not too sure that they give a flip.
Monday, January 20, 2025
Don Surber recycles a piece
9:40 AM:
It's inauguration day
I must've missed the original Substack piece. He says this was "an oldie". If so, it is new to me.
The Dems are worried about Trump's "vengeance", or so they say. Two things: 1) It will be extremely hard to get a conviction of a Democrat in DC, and 2) the Dems are liars. If they say they're worried, then they're lying. But they always lie, so what's new about that?
But that doesn't mean the new/old Prez shouldn't try to get as many convictions as possible. Why? The OJ Simpson trial destroyed his marketability. Even though OJ was acquitted, he wasn't viewed as being innocent. He became unmarketable afterwards. No more Hertz commercials. No more appearances at NFL games. The Democrats should have been honest. Honesty really is the best policy, but for the Democrats, honesty is like Holy Water to the Devil.
The Democrats are going to sell themselves as victims of Trump. It remains to be seen if that will work. As one wag once said, never overestimate the intelligence of the American people. If it weren't for the gullibility of the public, the Democrats would go out of business.
10:15 AM
Oopsie! Biden went done a great big pardon-a-rama, and gave almost all of DC a pardon. Well, blimey! Now it will be just about impossible to get a conviction of the whole crew at all. Maybe they really were afraid! In DC?! Yup, even in DC. Or so it looks.
It's inauguration day
I must've missed the original Substack piece. He says this was "an oldie". If so, it is new to me.
The Dems are worried about Trump's "vengeance", or so they say. Two things: 1) It will be extremely hard to get a conviction of a Democrat in DC, and 2) the Dems are liars. If they say they're worried, then they're lying. But they always lie, so what's new about that?
But that doesn't mean the new/old Prez shouldn't try to get as many convictions as possible. Why? The OJ Simpson trial destroyed his marketability. Even though OJ was acquitted, he wasn't viewed as being innocent. He became unmarketable afterwards. No more Hertz commercials. No more appearances at NFL games. The Democrats should have been honest. Honesty really is the best policy, but for the Democrats, honesty is like Holy Water to the Devil.
The Democrats are going to sell themselves as victims of Trump. It remains to be seen if that will work. As one wag once said, never overestimate the intelligence of the American people. If it weren't for the gullibility of the public, the Democrats would go out of business.
10:15 AM
Oopsie! Biden went done a great big pardon-a-rama, and gave almost all of DC a pardon. Well, blimey! Now it will be just about impossible to get a conviction of the whole crew at all. Maybe they really were afraid! In DC?! Yup, even in DC. Or so it looks.
Sunday, January 19, 2025
FAA demands SpaceX do "mishap investigation" into the loss of Starship yesterday
Behind the Black blog post of 1/17/25
Very interesting comment section. I think it may have been a RUD, because of centrifugal force of the spin would have caused sloshing, and that would create a problem with the engines that could have caused a RUD.
Strange movie
Replicas (2017) trailer
Keanu Reeves has played in the most unusual flicks. I was reminded of that after watching this on Tubi recently. And again, as I saw another of his movies in the waiting room just the other night. The other night, the movie playing with the sound down low was one of his John Wick flicks. I'd never seen those flicks before, so as I watched, I was rather flabbergasted by the inordinate amount of violence. Also, the scenes in that movie were rather bizarre. I noted that Reeves is in a lot of such movies.
Anyway, the idea behind Replicas is rather strange because it revolves around the matter of what life actually is. This is hard to wrap you mind around. The flick wasn't particularly well-received. I can see why. It is hard to watch.
ERA? No way
12:00 PM:
What is the actual text of the document that Biden claims in now part of the Constitution?
How can the ERA Amendment be a part of the Constitution when part of it is already violated if it is treated as if it were law? Since has taken over 7 years to get the states' ratification, then it violates itself. If Congress alters it after the fact, then it has to re-voted upon. It hasn't. So what version of the amendment gets included in the Constitution? Clearly not the one that many of the states voted upon before.
3:26 PM:
Wait a minute. I re-read that Wikipedia entry. The article's text was submitted along with a resolution, whose term length was seven years. It has been lengthened, but some states rescinded their approval. The point may still hold, as the resolution was part of the process. If the process of ratification was deemed to be seven years, then it should be included with the text of the amendment itself. I believe some amendments to the Constitution included that time-limited text in the amendment language.
There's a reason for putting a time limit on it. Otherwise, why have one in the resolution accompanying the amendment itself? If the idea is to get tricky, so as to get initial approval, and then moving the goalposts in order to overcome opposition, should that be allowed?
In any case, the time limits have expired. Now they want to make the time limits go away so that they can claim ratification. If the Congress can change the goal posts, then the states can rescind their approval. Still, no dice on the ERA.
What is the actual text of the document that Biden claims in now part of the Constitution?
How can the ERA Amendment be a part of the Constitution when part of it is already violated if it is treated as if it were law? Since has taken over 7 years to get the states' ratification, then it violates itself. If Congress alters it after the fact, then it has to re-voted upon. It hasn't. So what version of the amendment gets included in the Constitution? Clearly not the one that many of the states voted upon before.
3:26 PM:
Wait a minute. I re-read that Wikipedia entry. The article's text was submitted along with a resolution, whose term length was seven years. It has been lengthened, but some states rescinded their approval. The point may still hold, as the resolution was part of the process. If the process of ratification was deemed to be seven years, then it should be included with the text of the amendment itself. I believe some amendments to the Constitution included that time-limited text in the amendment language.
There's a reason for putting a time limit on it. Otherwise, why have one in the resolution accompanying the amendment itself? If the idea is to get tricky, so as to get initial approval, and then moving the goalposts in order to overcome opposition, should that be allowed?
In any case, the time limits have expired. Now they want to make the time limits go away so that they can claim ratification. If the Congress can change the goal posts, then the states can rescind their approval. Still, no dice on the ERA.
The Gavin shoulder shimmy--- wtf
and other things...
🚨 JOE ROGAN: “The fire in Hawaii has been a disaster for those who’ve lost their houses; no one has rebuilt. Why is Gavin talking to the governor of Hawaii who has mishandled that? And why is Gavin shimmying his shoulders? He can’t hide his excitement for the possibility of… pic.twitter.com/sjDHM9cE7c
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) January 14, 2025
Tacky
Let's be nice /s
All The Homes Are Gone pic.twitter.com/QhmOzt8kIY
— The United Spot (@TheUnitedSpot__) January 15, 2025
Savage joke
NEW: SNL unleashes a savage joke on Rachel Maddow, mistaking her for a man.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) January 19, 2025
JOY REID: “What do you think, Rachel?”
CHRIS HAYES: “Oh, I’m not Rachel. I’m Chris Hayes.”
JOY REID: “Huh.”
Even the liberal cast members find this hilarious. You can hear the snort at the end. pic.twitter.com/R6IGO1uYGV
Saturday, January 18, 2025
The Free Mind Substack Column ---- We Need A Cognitive Freedom Movement
THIS
As I've been writing, the government is out of control. Cognitive Freedom IS Freedom.
As they like to say--- Read the whole thang.
Naomi Wolf Substack Column--- "What is a War?
Indeed, what IS a war?
Is this part of the coup de etat that I have been worried about? Perhaps the fire is one of those unconventional ways of war-fighting that isn't being recognized for what it is.
It could bring it into focus, and suggest a response to it.
At least one would hope so. The point of the essay is to ask questions which are not being asked. The behavior here is not NORMAL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)