This is going to be one of those philosophical types of posts. Mainly, it is about a branch of philosophy known as epistemology, which is the study of knowledge.
Is it possible to really know a thing? You might get deep into this subject and have that kind of question pop up. Therefore, a bit of opinion will color what you believe to be true. How could it not be the case, if the whole idea of truth itself can be disputed?
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to posit that we have pretty reliable indications of what is true and what isn't. Esoteric discussions about what is really true or not true are out there in the weeds.
Consequently, there cannot be a situation in which "my truth" , "your truth", and "the truth" can be true all at the same time and also different from each other. But you hear the terms sometimes thrown about out there as if it were a valid thing. One example I can think of is in the movie Passion of the Christ, where Pilate tells his wife what "his truth" is. In that case, the truth and "his truth" would both be true if what he said was true. It is a movie though, and so it isn't necessarily "the truth", since Pilate may not have ever said any such thing. The point? I don't know. Only this: that words can be malleable, but the truth is not.
The use of words may get you closer to truth or further from it. Largely, it would be a matter of the intent of the one who communicates the words and what the intent of those words are. The intent could be to inform or deceive. In other words, if a person knows what the truth is, and says something that contradicts this, then clearly the intent is to deceive. Why else use words that way?
I like to say that truth is a slippery thing. If you think you've got it, maybe you don't. In other words, you can believe a thing quite strongly, but find out that what you believed was wrong.
So how do you know? You have to have a way of knowing that gives reliable answers. Such a way can be derived from a study of knowledge, and how we know what we know.
Science can do this. Science gives a procedure for determining truth. But is science always reliable? Not always, as great scientists have had their work superseded during the course of time. It reminds me of what I heard about Einstein when his theories superseded Newton's. Basically, Einstein was contradicting Newton ( why this is true is beyond the scope of this little essay ). Does that make somebody a liar then? No. It just means that knowledge advances with more knowledge.
Let's say that Newton and Einstein were contemporaries. Who do you believe? How do you determine who's right and who's wrong? If you depended upon the reputations of each, you'd have a big problem, now wouldn't you? In other words, there has to be more than one way to skin that cat.
If Newton and Einstein were also politicians, then it would be a matter of who is more powerful.
But what if the wrong guy prevailed? The truth wouldn't be served, but the winner would be.
Could science give more reliable answers? Yes, provided that the rules of science were followed. But politics and rules don't necessarily mix. Nor do politics and truth mix.
Politics may be able to force a situation to be accepted as "right" even if it is wrong. But science is not that way. When it is, it ceases to be science.
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.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
A "permanent" coup?
Comment:
This link was from a Free Republic post. The comment section there acknowledges two things:
1) Taibbi is anti-Trump, and 2) Taibbi is against the soft-coup.
He is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone, so that gives a pretty good indication of who he is. He also contributed to Keith Olbermann's show. Olbermann strikes me as a nutcase. Taibbi seems to have a way of pissing off just about everybody.
So, what's my opinion of his piece? He doesn't like Trump nor does he like the plotters of this coup.
As for what I think of his calling it a permanent coup, I would disagree. It won't last. One or the other must win this confrontation. Trump is the only one in politics that I've seen who is willing to take it on. Just my own opinion here, but we've had this ongoing sedition in our country for a long time now. If Trump fails in putting it down, the results are going to be painful for almost everyone on this planet. If he succeeds, it will be painful for the few malcontents and a small minority of their followers.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Americans support what the Dems are doing. It is only possible for them to succeed because the vast majority of Americans aren't fully aware of how rotten this attempted coup is. On that score, if Trump can win those who normally side with the Dems over to his side, he will prevail. If not, they plotters will win, and the Republic will cease to be.
This link was from a Free Republic post. The comment section there acknowledges two things:
1) Taibbi is anti-Trump, and 2) Taibbi is against the soft-coup.
He is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone, so that gives a pretty good indication of who he is. He also contributed to Keith Olbermann's show. Olbermann strikes me as a nutcase. Taibbi seems to have a way of pissing off just about everybody.
So, what's my opinion of his piece? He doesn't like Trump nor does he like the plotters of this coup.
As for what I think of his calling it a permanent coup, I would disagree. It won't last. One or the other must win this confrontation. Trump is the only one in politics that I've seen who is willing to take it on. Just my own opinion here, but we've had this ongoing sedition in our country for a long time now. If Trump fails in putting it down, the results are going to be painful for almost everyone on this planet. If he succeeds, it will be painful for the few malcontents and a small minority of their followers.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Americans support what the Dems are doing. It is only possible for them to succeed because the vast majority of Americans aren't fully aware of how rotten this attempted coup is. On that score, if Trump can win those who normally side with the Dems over to his side, he will prevail. If not, they plotters will win, and the Republic will cease to be.
Matt Taibbi:"We're in a permanent coup." https://t.co/iwURkHau39— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 12, 2019
Friday, October 11, 2019
What's up with this ambassador?
Comment:
This former ambassador was the one who was to give testimony today ( behind closed doors, Star Chamber style ).
Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't the President have the power to fire people like this? It seems that the Democrats are trying to make a crime out of his execution of the office of the Presidency.
She was holding up visas of Ukrainian officials who were trying to come to the US and give testimony about what was going on there. So, why was this ambassador holding up these visas?
This former ambassador was the one who was to give testimony today ( behind closed doors, Star Chamber style ).
Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't the President have the power to fire people like this? It seems that the Democrats are trying to make a crime out of his execution of the office of the Presidency.
She was holding up visas of Ukrainian officials who were trying to come to the US and give testimony about what was going on there. So, why was this ambassador holding up these visas?
Dark Age
Comment:
Answer: Yes, it appears that at the very least, we are on that path.
Next question.
Answer: Yes, it appears that at the very least, we are on that path.
Next question.
— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 11, 2019
Some say he is no longer running for POTUS, but merely moving Overton Window
Comment:
Orwellian. If the Overton Window moves in that direction, America as we have known it, is over.
This loon advocates removing religious liberty from any group that opposes homosexuality, yet claims this isn't infringing upon First Amendment rights.
The crowd was reported to have cheered loudly. A so-called "LGBT" town hall.
Orwellian. If the Overton Window moves in that direction, America as we have known it, is over.
This loon advocates removing religious liberty from any group that opposes homosexuality, yet claims this isn't infringing upon First Amendment rights.
The crowd was reported to have cheered loudly. A so-called "LGBT" town hall.
Beto Vows to Strip Tax-Exempt Status From Churches That Oppose Gay Marriage https://t.co/JUggRVqCf7 #Faith via @pjmedia_com— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 11, 2019
"Your move, creep"
Comment:
Note: "Zugzwang" is a term used in chess. It means no move is possible without weakening one's own position. It is common in "end game" scenarios.
Yeah, and it reminds me of this scene. Maybe in real life we are talking about Lady Liberty being raped. Who's Robocop, then?
We haven't seen Robo yet. Bwah, hah, hah.
Note: "Zugzwang" is a term used in chess. It means no move is possible without weakening one's own position. It is common in "end game" scenarios.
Yeah, and it reminds me of this scene. Maybe in real life we are talking about Lady Liberty being raped. Who's Robocop, then?
We haven't seen Robo yet. Bwah, hah, hah.
Zugzwang: Why Nancy Pelosi Refuses to Hold an Impeachment Vote https://t.co/WVCiHll6uS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 11, 2019
Star Chamber holds another secret hearing
Comment:
The tweet is from Roll Call.
If you read beyond the headline, the article mentions that the former ambassador will testify behind closed doors.
So, how do we know what she said????
By the way, the article refers to "subpoenas", which aren't. This is Orwellian.
The tweet is from Roll Call.
If you read beyond the headline, the article mentions that the former ambassador will testify behind closed doors.
So, how do we know what she said????
By the way, the article refers to "subpoenas", which aren't. This is Orwellian.
Latest impeachment news: Recalled U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who Trump called “bad news” to testify before House committees today https://t.co/EWFn7lbUnz— Roll Call (@rollcall) October 11, 2019
Tribal politics can become personal
Comment:
One good reason not to identify too closely with the tribe. The tribe can turn on you.
One good reason not to identify too closely with the tribe. The tribe can turn on you.
.@Jim_Jordan:— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) October 11, 2019
"Remember…if they can do it to a President, imagine what they can do to you and I"
Listen #TheSaraCarterShow, I spoke with Congressman Jordan on what @RepAdamSchiff and @RepJerryNadler are doing and what's @TheDemocrats agenda.https://t.co/5ziMEO6Kes
Star Chamber follies
Comment:
10.11.19:
8:20 am:
Perhaps this star chamber concept seems a bit esoteric. Let me try to simplify it without going too far. Note that I am concerned about not "going too far". If only the Democrats would think like this.
Anyway, a Star Chamber could be considered as an attempt by the Democrats to be JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER.
How so? By what they are doing. They are attempting to go around the courts, they are going around the process which includes ALL members of the House ( besides just themselves), and they want to get the Senate to go along. That's the whole she-bang right there. Judge, jury and executioner. They want the whole ball of wax. That's what a Star Chamber is.
You'd have to be nuts to want to override all of our constitutional protections. If they could do that the President, they could do that to YOU.
7:00 am:
This dovetails with what I noted long ago on this blog--- progressivism isn't. Rather, it is "regressivism", a reversion to barbaric practices once deemed extinct.
There is yet another word for it---reactionary. Yep, the progressives aren't progressive. They are what they condemn, and that is reactionary. We are headed toward a type of backwardness not seen here for centuries.
How is it progressive to go back to a Salem Witch Trial? You could extend this argument to many facets of the so-called progressive program--- such as AGW.
10.10.19:
The WB isn't whistleblower. He is an illicit leaker for a matter that isn't illegal anyway. It's a total fraud, which intended to distract from their own criminality.
By the way, why is the CIA getting involved in domestic politics? Isn't this forbidden to them? Oh, I forgot. Democrats run DC. There's no accountability there.
10.11.19:
8:20 am:
Perhaps this star chamber concept seems a bit esoteric. Let me try to simplify it without going too far. Note that I am concerned about not "going too far". If only the Democrats would think like this.
Anyway, a Star Chamber could be considered as an attempt by the Democrats to be JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER.
How so? By what they are doing. They are attempting to go around the courts, they are going around the process which includes ALL members of the House ( besides just themselves), and they want to get the Senate to go along. That's the whole she-bang right there. Judge, jury and executioner. They want the whole ball of wax. That's what a Star Chamber is.
You'd have to be nuts to want to override all of our constitutional protections. If they could do that the President, they could do that to YOU.
7:00 am:
This dovetails with what I noted long ago on this blog--- progressivism isn't. Rather, it is "regressivism", a reversion to barbaric practices once deemed extinct.
There is yet another word for it---reactionary. Yep, the progressives aren't progressive. They are what they condemn, and that is reactionary. We are headed toward a type of backwardness not seen here for centuries.
How is it progressive to go back to a Salem Witch Trial? You could extend this argument to many facets of the so-called progressive program--- such as AGW.
6 Ways Salem Witch Trials Were Fairer Than Dems’ Impeachment Inquiry https://t.co/zWCWKqYzLl— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 11, 2019
10.10.19:
The WB isn't whistleblower. He is an illicit leaker for a matter that isn't illegal anyway. It's a total fraud, which intended to distract from their own criminality.
By the way, why is the CIA getting involved in domestic politics? Isn't this forbidden to them? Oh, I forgot. Democrats run DC. There's no accountability there.
REPORT: Joe Biden Had Working Relationship With 'Whistle-blower"... https://t.co/wHwbU48PyD via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 10, 2019
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Remember the term "enemies list"?
Comment:
It was a Nixon era term, which describes the paranoia of that administration. So, is the new enemies list the thing that Bongino is referring to?
Getting put on the list is an intimidation tactic. The idea is to silence their critics, meaning Bongino himself, and anybody else that supports Trump.
It shouldn't be a big surprise. Wasn't it in the news that Castro tried to intimidate some people in San Antonio Texas who were merely expressing their constitutional right to express their political views?
Nixon may have been a choir boy compared to these goons. If all this is true, they are a criminal element in positions of authority, and this is indeed intimidating behavior. Why threaten people who are seeking out the truth of matters that should concern us all? Is it Nixonian cover-up?
It was a Nixon era term, which describes the paranoia of that administration. So, is the new enemies list the thing that Bongino is referring to?
Getting put on the list is an intimidation tactic. The idea is to silence their critics, meaning Bongino himself, and anybody else that supports Trump.
It shouldn't be a big surprise. Wasn't it in the news that Castro tried to intimidate some people in San Antonio Texas who were merely expressing their constitutional right to express their political views?
Nixon may have been a choir boy compared to these goons. If all this is true, they are a criminal element in positions of authority, and this is indeed intimidating behavior. Why threaten people who are seeking out the truth of matters that should concern us all? Is it Nixonian cover-up?
Cart before the horse
Comment:
Is the following argument a case of the "cart being placed before the horse"? This resolution with respect to grand jury proceedings is being used as an argument that an impeachment inquiry vote of the full house has already taken place.
No formal vote has been taken in order to open an impeachment inquiry---does the resolution do this on its own? This resolution has yet to ruled upon, and the House seems to want to avoid any further rulings from the court with respect to their latest demands for information from the POTUS.
There WAS a formal vote on this resolution. Therefore, the ruling on this resolution may impact the Dems claim that an impeachment inquiry has already started.
It would seem that an established law supersedes any mere resolution. The House may have sole power of impeachment, but in order to override an established law, it would mean that they could become a law upon themselves. A formal law requires the usual process of a vote in both houses, and a signature by the POTUS. Congressional laws can also be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This declaration appears to claim that an impeachment resolution can override all of that. However, an inquiry could establish what laws were violated which would justify a formal impeachment vote. The CONUS does require that it be for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." There is no formal finding of fact that a crime took place.
Therefore, the claim is a reach. It is just more Star Chamber stuff. The House wants to summarily overrule both the POTUS and the judiciary. Separation of Powers would be thrown out the window. The House Democrats are out of control.
But the court has to rule on it.
Is the following argument a case of the "cart being placed before the horse"? This resolution with respect to grand jury proceedings is being used as an argument that an impeachment inquiry vote of the full house has already taken place.
 |
| source |
No formal vote has been taken in order to open an impeachment inquiry---does the resolution do this on its own? This resolution has yet to ruled upon, and the House seems to want to avoid any further rulings from the court with respect to their latest demands for information from the POTUS.
There WAS a formal vote on this resolution. Therefore, the ruling on this resolution may impact the Dems claim that an impeachment inquiry has already started.
It would seem that an established law supersedes any mere resolution. The House may have sole power of impeachment, but in order to override an established law, it would mean that they could become a law upon themselves. A formal law requires the usual process of a vote in both houses, and a signature by the POTUS. Congressional laws can also be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This declaration appears to claim that an impeachment resolution can override all of that. However, an inquiry could establish what laws were violated which would justify a formal impeachment vote. The CONUS does require that it be for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." There is no formal finding of fact that a crime took place.
Therefore, the claim is a reach. It is just more Star Chamber stuff. The House wants to summarily overrule both the POTUS and the judiciary. Separation of Powers would be thrown out the window. The House Democrats are out of control.
But the court has to rule on it.
Democrats face consequences of skipping floor impeachment vote https://t.co/66stOYKu8B via @RollCall— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 10, 2019
Covers all the ground
Comment:
President Trump is well between the lines. The Democrats aren't.
The lines are like road lanes. If you have a double yellow line, you don't cross it. But the Democrats are all over the road, weaving around like a drunk driver.
If the situation was analogous to a traffic situation, and a traffic cop saw it, the Democrats would be pulled over, and administered a breathalyzer. Maybe they are drunk on their own misguided sense of importance and power.
Perhaps a dash of cold water could wake them the hell up.
President Trump is well between the lines. The Democrats aren't.
The lines are like road lanes. If you have a double yellow line, you don't cross it. But the Democrats are all over the road, weaving around like a drunk driver.
If the situation was analogous to a traffic situation, and a traffic cop saw it, the Democrats would be pulled over, and administered a breathalyzer. Maybe they are drunk on their own misguided sense of importance and power.
Perhaps a dash of cold water could wake them the hell up.
Trump Refuses to Participate in Impeachment Farce https://t.co/aO4bBeiTqg via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 10, 2019
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Star Chamber
Comment:
10.9.19:
Here's a liberal v. a conservative slugging it out, so to speak. At first, it just seemed like a devil's advocacy argument from the liberal. But then I noticed that the guy is from a liberal group, and so it really was a serious attempt at an argument. (Moments later: a google search indicates that he is from Scrappleface, which is a conservative site. At the moment, I am perplexed. He pulled off a convincing performance. Fooled me, anyway. )
Note once again the secrecy being actively sought out. This is Star Chamber advocacy. What these people are advocating is seditious, and ought to be called out as such. It is "wildly" improper, and any lawmaker who advocates such a thing is "wildly unfit" themselves. That would be Nancy Pelosi and company.
In such a case, a stern warning should be sounded that this is seditious and cannot be tolerated.
But will that happen? Anything is possible, but if Trump did arrest members of Congress, they just might try something like this.
10.8.19:
8:45 pm:
CTH summarizes the Big Picture. Whatever you want to call it, it is outside the boundaries of our law and tradition. I call it Star Chamber. The president calls it Kangaroo Court. It is not legal, and it is not right, and it should fail miserably.
The only way this works is if the public has collectively taken a Stupid Pill. Nobody should want to live in a country in which anybody can be hauled before this kind of court, and have all rights taken away from them. You have to be ten kinds of fool to want something like this to prevail.
1:25 pm:
Star chamber stuff.
and this...
10:45 am:
Bernie boy, if you believed in the CONUS yourself, you'd be wearing a MAGA cap. Either Bernie is liar, or he doesn't have a clue. Either way, it's bad. By the way, aren't these lefties the ones who keep saying that the CONUS is out of date? What Bernie should be saying is why the CONUS should be replaced, that is if Bernie was on the level. The lefties love the CONUS when it suits them, and hate it when it doesn't.
The criminal leaker wants to testify in secret for the Soviet-style star chamber. All of this in the name of justice and freedom. Add to this bizarre story their favorite claim about defending the "rule of law" and "democracy". It's all a fake-out if Huber is right.
Also if true, the Democrats are aiding and abetting a felon. But that is nothing new for them.
You have to have an IQ of a toadstool to believe this garbage from the Dems.
10.9.19:
Here's a liberal v. a conservative slugging it out, so to speak. At first, it just seemed like a devil's advocacy argument from the liberal. But then I noticed that the guy is from a liberal group, and so it really was a serious attempt at an argument. (Moments later: a google search indicates that he is from Scrappleface, which is a conservative site. At the moment, I am perplexed. He pulled off a convincing performance. Fooled me, anyway. )
Note once again the secrecy being actively sought out. This is Star Chamber advocacy. What these people are advocating is seditious, and ought to be called out as such. It is "wildly" improper, and any lawmaker who advocates such a thing is "wildly unfit" themselves. That would be Nancy Pelosi and company.
In such a case, a stern warning should be sounded that this is seditious and cannot be tolerated.
But will that happen? Anything is possible, but if Trump did arrest members of Congress, they just might try something like this.
10.8.19:
8:45 pm:
CTH summarizes the Big Picture. Whatever you want to call it, it is outside the boundaries of our law and tradition. I call it Star Chamber. The president calls it Kangaroo Court. It is not legal, and it is not right, and it should fail miserably.
The only way this works is if the public has collectively taken a Stupid Pill. Nobody should want to live in a country in which anybody can be hauled before this kind of court, and have all rights taken away from them. You have to be ten kinds of fool to want something like this to prevail.
BIG PICTURE - White House Responds to Speaker Pelosi Unconstitutional Impeachment Effort - (Full pdf and background)... https://t.co/PboR6Sy4Nb via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 9, 2019
1:25 pm:
Star chamber stuff.
The fact that Democrats are doing everything they can to be as secretive as possible in their efforts to impeach Trump is a major red flag that they are up to their usual shenanigans https://t.co/kzJsOCEVfa— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 7, 2019
and this...
If he doesn’t answer their questions in a forthright manner quickly, or if he answers and confirms our worst suspicions, he should be sacked immediately. He has done unbelievable harm to the IC and undermined the trust of the people in it. https://t.co/MyoS6OqrsF— Mike (@Doranimated) October 8, 2019
10:45 am:
Bernie boy, if you believed in the CONUS yourself, you'd be wearing a MAGA cap. Either Bernie is liar, or he doesn't have a clue. Either way, it's bad. By the way, aren't these lefties the ones who keep saying that the CONUS is out of date? What Bernie should be saying is why the CONUS should be replaced, that is if Bernie was on the level. The lefties love the CONUS when it suits them, and hate it when it doesn't.
10:00 am:As you’re against the 2nd amendment wouldn’t that rule you out? Also good luck implementing top down centralized socialism alongside states rights https://t.co/ZuqLpI5KPS— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 6, 2019
The criminal leaker wants to testify in secret for the Soviet-style star chamber. All of this in the name of justice and freedom. Add to this bizarre story their favorite claim about defending the "rule of law" and "democracy". It's all a fake-out if Huber is right.
Also if true, the Democrats are aiding and abetting a felon. But that is nothing new for them.
You have to have an IQ of a toadstool to believe this garbage from the Dems.
If the remote location is in the woods it’s a giveaway it’s Hillary https://t.co/ygm4nGraHL— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 7, 2019
FISA abuse coming to light
Comment:
The FISA report compiled by Horowitz is coming out soon. Part of it will discuss the very thing mentioned here.
It may put into perspective what the Star Chamber is attempting to hide. After all, the Trump request for information from Ukraine has something to do with Spygate-- the attempted soft coup of the Trump presidency.
The FISA report compiled by Horowitz is coming out soon. Part of it will discuss the very thing mentioned here.
It may put into perspective what the Star Chamber is attempting to hide. After all, the Trump request for information from Ukraine has something to do with Spygate-- the attempted soft coup of the Trump presidency.
Democrat accusation against Trump not even plausible now
Comment:
If you may recall, Burisma is where the corruption in Ukraine took place, vis-a-vis Joe Biden and son. Biden was on video bragging about how they got Ukraine to drop the investigation into Burisma. The Obama Administration, through Biden, threatened to pull aid in order to pressure Ukraine into dropping the investigation into Burisma. Burisma hired the unqualified Hunter Biden for a cushy job that SOMEBODY managed to procure for him.
Memo to Star Chamber: But don't let the facts stop you. By all means, impeach.
Note: The twitter link below doesn't work, try this one.
If you may recall, Burisma is where the corruption in Ukraine took place, vis-a-vis Joe Biden and son. Biden was on video bragging about how they got Ukraine to drop the investigation into Burisma. The Obama Administration, through Biden, threatened to pull aid in order to pressure Ukraine into dropping the investigation into Burisma. Burisma hired the unqualified Hunter Biden for a cushy job that SOMEBODY managed to procure for him.
Memo to Star Chamber: But don't let the facts stop you. By all means, impeach.
Note: The twitter link below doesn't work, try this one.
Investigation into Burisma took place before Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. https://t.co/ucZjaa2BnA— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 9, 2019
Dumbed-down population may be what was intended all along
Comment:
12:20 pm:
More along the lines of Star Chamber resulting from illicit leaker.
This article is loaded with euphemisms. In fact, it is so loaded that it makes me suspicious.
It is not a "whistleblower", but illicit leaker. It is not "anonymous", it is secret. Therefore, a secret illicit leaker. He goes on to call the procedures "unorthodox", but they are illegal. The DOJ has ruled on the issue. What they did was not allowed.
The "impeachment inquiry" is not rightly called that. It should be called a star chamber. Therefore, the illicit leak set up the star chamber, which seeks to impeach the POTUS without attention to CONUS' detail.
If you want to win on this, you need to call things by the right names. Maybe the GOP doesn't really want to win.
A dulled mind is the sign of the times. Upgrade the rhetoric, boys. Unless you want the population to be swindled out of its rightful position as sovereign of a free republic.
12:20 pm:
More along the lines of Star Chamber resulting from illicit leaker.
11:20 am:So they did check the box about having first hand information (when they didn't) and they didn't check the box saying they had contact with Congress (when they did). Sounds credible and legit to me. https://t.co/T49tGtoO4K— Shem Horne (@Shem_Infinite) October 7, 2019
This article is loaded with euphemisms. In fact, it is so loaded that it makes me suspicious.
It is not a "whistleblower", but illicit leaker. It is not "anonymous", it is secret. Therefore, a secret illicit leaker. He goes on to call the procedures "unorthodox", but they are illegal. The DOJ has ruled on the issue. What they did was not allowed.
The "impeachment inquiry" is not rightly called that. It should be called a star chamber. Therefore, the illicit leak set up the star chamber, which seeks to impeach the POTUS without attention to CONUS' detail.
If you want to win on this, you need to call things by the right names. Maybe the GOP doesn't really want to win.
A dulled mind is the sign of the times. Upgrade the rhetoric, boys. Unless you want the population to be swindled out of its rightful position as sovereign of a free republic.
Whistleblower had 'professional' tie to 2020 Democratic candidate https://t.co/pHNtAb4bDO— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 9, 2019
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
The core of the Russian collusion hoax has always been vulnerable
Comment:
Why they don't go after the obvious is a bit of a mystery. But then again, not such a mystery if their purpose is not to prevail, but to pretend to oppose the Democrats.
Why they don't go after the obvious is a bit of a mystery. But then again, not such a mystery if their purpose is not to prevail, but to pretend to oppose the Democrats.
Investigate Crowdstrike https://t.co/XqSHRsoAqK— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 8, 2019
The defenders of CONUS should try reading it
Comment:
1:05 pm:
By the same logic, if the POTUS were to arrest his accusers, that would put a stop to this circus. If the Dems want to vote on impeachment, they have that power. But these people should use the correct words. It isn't an impeachment inquiry. It isn't precedented either, nor well within the boundaries of the law. Such action now, based upon lawless testimony, is completely arbitrary and partisan.
POTUS is well within in the law, the House Dems with their Star Chamber are outside the norms, as well as the law.
11:30 am:
What if the situation were to be reversed? Members of Congress are privileged from arrest, but not in all cases. See Article I, Section 6--- "Treason, felony, or breach of peace". There is ample evidence for probable cause for crimes to have been committed and members of Congress have their fingerprints are all over it.
Rep Tlaib and her cohorts would scream bloody murder if Trump were found to be looking for ways to arrest members of Congress. Perhaps she should consider the possibility that this can cut both ways.
1:05 pm:
By the same logic, if the POTUS were to arrest his accusers, that would put a stop to this circus. If the Dems want to vote on impeachment, they have that power. But these people should use the correct words. It isn't an impeachment inquiry. It isn't precedented either, nor well within the boundaries of the law. Such action now, based upon lawless testimony, is completely arbitrary and partisan.
POTUS is well within in the law, the House Dems with their Star Chamber are outside the norms, as well as the law.
Here's what it looks like when Democrats are being honest: “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” pic.twitter.com/2V8KhWbEC2— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) October 8, 2019
11:30 am:
What if the situation were to be reversed? Members of Congress are privileged from arrest, but not in all cases. See Article I, Section 6--- "Treason, felony, or breach of peace". There is ample evidence for probable cause for crimes to have been committed and members of Congress have their fingerprints are all over it.
Rep Tlaib and her cohorts would scream bloody murder if Trump were found to be looking for ways to arrest members of Congress. Perhaps she should consider the possibility that this can cut both ways.
Rashida Tlaib: We're Looking For Ways to Have Trump Officials Arrested https://t.co/j7vwSZL2hG via @rustyweiss74— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 8, 2019
Proposed "gun-free" zone liability law
Comment:
It seems like a better idea than "red flag" laws. Therefore, it may well be the LAST thing they'll want to do. Perhaps the lawmakers can get some encouragement.
Here's an "atta-boy" if that would help.
It seems like a better idea than "red flag" laws. Therefore, it may well be the LAST thing they'll want to do. Perhaps the lawmakers can get some encouragement.
Here's an "atta-boy" if that would help.
SEEMS EMINENTLY FAIR: Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt: Bills would re… https://t.co/rbPwFkBMce— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 8, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
Why be a stickler for words and process?
As for words, we need accurate use of the language. What else is language but the tools of thought, and of communication? Unless an idea be transmitted according to a standard, what hope do you have in the accurate transmission of that thought from one mind to another, when the meaning of those words are not clear and agreed upon?
In other words, the word "gay" is not standard English. If it were, it would mean homosexual. But gay is not homosexual, homosexual is homosexual. We don't change the use of words just because we don't like it for whatever reason. If you do, then what is the dictionary meaning of that word? Let's see:
"Gay" now has three shades of meaning. Go back in time, and you don't see that. In 1970, the Mary Tyler Moore show used the word "gay" with its original meaning. Culture changed the word meaning, but why did this happen? Was it because the public at large was asleep at the switch? Is it happening now, but along a more broad and pernicious scope?
Fast forward to today, and we see the meanings of words changing and morphing into whole new meanings. It is happening so fast that it breathtaking.
Rule of law now means mockery of the law. Why? Well, that is where the process comes in. You cannot call it a House impeachment inquiry if only part of the House agrees to it. The House is a collective body, and therefore all members should have a vote. But what we have seen here is that no vote is allowed, but the representation of it as a "House" decision is still being made. We have the metamorphosis of the word "House" to the new meaning, which is only a small part of the House. It doesn't stop with the word House, either. Inquiry is being redefined to suit the impeachment partisans. An inquiry was once synonymous with an investigation. And an impeachment inquiry is more restricted than your ordinary inquiry. There is a doctrine called "separation of powers" which handles this kind of inquiry. It gives "impeachment inquiry" its very meaning then. The absence of this formerly defined process makes the Democrat partisan faction efforts more accurately defined as a Star Chamber.
A Star Chamber with secret proceedings. A Star Chamber without defense witnesses and cross-examination. A Star Chamber without even a probable cause ( 4th amendment ) in order to begin an investigation. The DOJ shot down the notion of a secret witness with hearsay as evidence. It isn't a matter for debate. In this society, as long as the CONUS (constitution ) survives, and if there is respect for precedent and the law, none of this would be allowed. But here it is anyway. Therefore, "whistleblower" isn't the correct term, either. Rather, it should be "a leaker of classified information", which is in itself, a violation of the law. Therefore, the correct term is a criminal leaker, whose leaks are justifying the existence of this illegal Star Chamber, which has no basis in the law, but is instead making a mockery of it.
The lack of respect for the meanings of words and the process in the law is resulting in an earthquake of change in our government. What was once a free people living under the rule of law is now a country in which entertains the notion that Star Chamber treatment for those accused of wrongdoing is somehow the new standard for how we should arrive at justice. How can that be "justice" unless the notion of justice has now be stood upon its very head? It is like redefining the entire culture. Words don't mean anything at all in such an environment, nor does the law.
Perhaps sanity can prevail and we can once again return to that more calmer time when a man received fair treatment under the law, and the outcome was one in which we can have reasonable confidence as being correct.
In other words, the word "gay" is not standard English. If it were, it would mean homosexual. But gay is not homosexual, homosexual is homosexual. We don't change the use of words just because we don't like it for whatever reason. If you do, then what is the dictionary meaning of that word? Let's see:
"Gay" now has three shades of meaning. Go back in time, and you don't see that. In 1970, the Mary Tyler Moore show used the word "gay" with its original meaning. Culture changed the word meaning, but why did this happen? Was it because the public at large was asleep at the switch? Is it happening now, but along a more broad and pernicious scope?
Fast forward to today, and we see the meanings of words changing and morphing into whole new meanings. It is happening so fast that it breathtaking.
Rule of law now means mockery of the law. Why? Well, that is where the process comes in. You cannot call it a House impeachment inquiry if only part of the House agrees to it. The House is a collective body, and therefore all members should have a vote. But what we have seen here is that no vote is allowed, but the representation of it as a "House" decision is still being made. We have the metamorphosis of the word "House" to the new meaning, which is only a small part of the House. It doesn't stop with the word House, either. Inquiry is being redefined to suit the impeachment partisans. An inquiry was once synonymous with an investigation. And an impeachment inquiry is more restricted than your ordinary inquiry. There is a doctrine called "separation of powers" which handles this kind of inquiry. It gives "impeachment inquiry" its very meaning then. The absence of this formerly defined process makes the Democrat partisan faction efforts more accurately defined as a Star Chamber.
A Star Chamber with secret proceedings. A Star Chamber without defense witnesses and cross-examination. A Star Chamber without even a probable cause ( 4th amendment ) in order to begin an investigation. The DOJ shot down the notion of a secret witness with hearsay as evidence. It isn't a matter for debate. In this society, as long as the CONUS (constitution ) survives, and if there is respect for precedent and the law, none of this would be allowed. But here it is anyway. Therefore, "whistleblower" isn't the correct term, either. Rather, it should be "a leaker of classified information", which is in itself, a violation of the law. Therefore, the correct term is a criminal leaker, whose leaks are justifying the existence of this illegal Star Chamber, which has no basis in the law, but is instead making a mockery of it.
The lack of respect for the meanings of words and the process in the law is resulting in an earthquake of change in our government. What was once a free people living under the rule of law is now a country in which entertains the notion that Star Chamber treatment for those accused of wrongdoing is somehow the new standard for how we should arrive at justice. How can that be "justice" unless the notion of justice has now be stood upon its very head? It is like redefining the entire culture. Words don't mean anything at all in such an environment, nor does the law.
Perhaps sanity can prevail and we can once again return to that more calmer time when a man received fair treatment under the law, and the outcome was one in which we can have reasonable confidence as being correct.
The recent committee hearings were secret?
CTH had a link to a Bartiromo interview with the House Minority leader.
It reminded me that the hearings last week were SECRET. That is also UNPRECEDENTED.
During the Watergate hearings, which I remember because I was a teenager about to go to college, the Congress held OPEN hearings. Those were NOT secret. Those hearings were TV so that everybody in the country could see it with their own eyes, and hear it with their own ears.
Now ask yourselves this. WHY ARE THEY HOLDING SECRET HEARINGS?
As the Minority Leader and Bartiromo discusses--- so they can claim something different was said than what actually was said. Since nobody was allowed to see it, then they can lie about it to the public.
Just try to keep in mind that the truth will win in the end. But also keep in mind that the Republic might not. It is definitely under attack. It may not survive such a concentrated effort at deceiving an entire nation.
It reminded me that the hearings last week were SECRET. That is also UNPRECEDENTED.
During the Watergate hearings, which I remember because I was a teenager about to go to college, the Congress held OPEN hearings. Those were NOT secret. Those hearings were TV so that everybody in the country could see it with their own eyes, and hear it with their own ears.
Now ask yourselves this. WHY ARE THEY HOLDING SECRET HEARINGS?
As the Minority Leader and Bartiromo discusses--- so they can claim something different was said than what actually was said. Since nobody was allowed to see it, then they can lie about it to the public.
Just try to keep in mind that the truth will win in the end. But also keep in mind that the Republic might not. It is definitely under attack. It may not survive such a concentrated effort at deceiving an entire nation.
What does "carefully worded" mean?
Comment:
Daily Update
5:15 pm:
I wrote that the below is a "subpoena". No, it is not a subpoena even if it was. No, it was a "news article" that writes about a "subpoena" which isn't a subpoena.
Phew! There's enough misinformation out there. I don't want to add to it, but at least attempt to subtract from it.
My apologies. Just wanted to hurry it up and get done with it because of "multi--tasking".
If I were AOC, I'd say it was okay because facts aren't important. She thinks "justice" is, but where is justice without the facts?
Call everything by their right names, and at least we get that part right.
4:43 pm:
The "subpoena" isn't a subpoena. Let's look at this "subpoena".
It isn't a House of Representatives impeachment inquiry. No, no, no. It is a Democrat caucus fishing expedition dressed up as a House impeachment inquiry. It doesn't even have to be a majority of the Democrats, because we don't know who voted for it in their caucus. It isn't an open process.
Even if it were, they are still making it up as they go along, as Sundance points out in his article that the tweet links to. They have to count on a lot of people to close their eyes to what is really going on here, while they lie their asses off.
It is only "carefully worded" to appear legal when it is highly irregular and definitely crooked.
In other words, carefully worded to lie more effectively.
Daily Update
5:15 pm:
I wrote that the below is a "subpoena". No, it is not a subpoena even if it was. No, it was a "news article" that writes about a "subpoena" which isn't a subpoena.
Phew! There's enough misinformation out there. I don't want to add to it, but at least attempt to subtract from it.
My apologies. Just wanted to hurry it up and get done with it because of "multi--tasking".
If I were AOC, I'd say it was okay because facts aren't important. She thinks "justice" is, but where is justice without the facts?
Call everything by their right names, and at least we get that part right.
4:43 pm:
The "subpoena" isn't a subpoena. Let's look at this "subpoena".
It isn't a House of Representatives impeachment inquiry. No, no, no. It is a Democrat caucus fishing expedition dressed up as a House impeachment inquiry. It doesn't even have to be a majority of the Democrats, because we don't know who voted for it in their caucus. It isn't an open process.
Even if it were, they are still making it up as they go along, as Sundance points out in his article that the tweet links to. They have to count on a lot of people to close their eyes to what is really going on here, while they lie their asses off.
It is only "carefully worded" to appear legal when it is highly irregular and definitely crooked.
In other words, carefully worded to lie more effectively.
House Sends More Carefully Worded Impeachment Demand Letters (Not Subpoenas)- OMB and Pentagon... https://t.co/W9M5OrX9nd via @thelastrefuge2
— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 7, 2019
The unprecedented act that Democrats claim is not, and vice versa
Comment:
This is a partial video and is near the end of the show; in which Bongino shows a segment of video with Chis Wallace interviewing Val Demmings (D) of Florida. Actually, the part with Demmings is a bit earlier than where I am linking. ( Bongino starts the segment about Demmings at about the 50-minute mark. )
There are those who may have seen this on the Fox news show with Wallace. This part may not be news then.
Demmings claims that it would be unprecedented if they had a full House vote, but Wallace corrects her. She was wrong.
What does this mean? Simple. It is one of two possibilities. One: is that Demings is too stupid to know the CONUS ( constitution of the US). Or two, she is lying through her teeth. It may be that Demmings is really stupid, and Bongino is giving her the credit of not being a liar, but that she is "confused". But I tell you what. SOMEBODY has to be lying here.
Who is lying? Well, the people who should know better. That would be Pelosi. Pelosi changed some rules early in the term when the Democrats just took over from the GOP, which came as a consequence of winning the election in 2018, as you may recall. Pelosi changed the rules that would not allow the GOP to have a vote until the articles of impeachment are voted on.
What the deal is here is that Pelosi is running an impeachment ATTEMPT without the benefit of a formal inquiry, which, according to two precedents, requires a vote. Therefore, Pelosi's gambit is totally arbitrary. In order to claim that they don't have to have a formal inquiry, which does not happen without the vote first, is what is unprecedented. But they have to lie and say that it isn't.
This is the sleight of hand that the Dems are trying to pull off. It remains to be seen if they can succeed in what is a totally arbitrary and partisan proceeding.
This is a partial video and is near the end of the show; in which Bongino shows a segment of video with Chis Wallace interviewing Val Demmings (D) of Florida. Actually, the part with Demmings is a bit earlier than where I am linking. ( Bongino starts the segment about Demmings at about the 50-minute mark. )
There are those who may have seen this on the Fox news show with Wallace. This part may not be news then.
Demmings claims that it would be unprecedented if they had a full House vote, but Wallace corrects her. She was wrong.
What does this mean? Simple. It is one of two possibilities. One: is that Demings is too stupid to know the CONUS ( constitution of the US). Or two, she is lying through her teeth. It may be that Demmings is really stupid, and Bongino is giving her the credit of not being a liar, but that she is "confused". But I tell you what. SOMEBODY has to be lying here.
Who is lying? Well, the people who should know better. That would be Pelosi. Pelosi changed some rules early in the term when the Democrats just took over from the GOP, which came as a consequence of winning the election in 2018, as you may recall. Pelosi changed the rules that would not allow the GOP to have a vote until the articles of impeachment are voted on.
What the deal is here is that Pelosi is running an impeachment ATTEMPT without the benefit of a formal inquiry, which, according to two precedents, requires a vote. Therefore, Pelosi's gambit is totally arbitrary. In order to claim that they don't have to have a formal inquiry, which does not happen without the vote first, is what is unprecedented. But they have to lie and say that it isn't.
This is the sleight of hand that the Dems are trying to pull off. It remains to be seen if they can succeed in what is a totally arbitrary and partisan proceeding.
Impeachment inquiry
Updated:
10.7.19:
This excrement-show is for their own followers, not the rest of us. Their followers believe every word their leaders tell them to believe.
The reason their own followers are fooled is because their own followers are too dumb to realize that their leaders are lying to them.
None of this is going to happen unless their try to run impeachment through on completely arbitrary grounds, which may not get the necessary votes in the House anyway. Much less the Senate.
Total Bovine-excrement kiddos.
10.6.19:
Daily update:
8:20 pm:
A few salient points
11:54 am:
The author says the people are sovereign. I would disagree. The constitution (CONUS) is sovereign. Nobody swears an oath to support the people, but to support the CONUS. Therefore, the CONUS is sovereign.
Ultimately, the people can change the CONUS, if they collectively decide to do it. This is according to the CONUS itself.
The people surrendered the sovereignty to the CONUS, and can take it back. But how do you do that when the officials who purportedly support it take that away that right?
That is what we are dealing with in Texas.
11:39 am:
The following tweet links to an article that shows that there wasn't a vote in Congress. If they had an actual vote, then it wasn't a formal vote in the House. It was a Democrat caucus vote. Therefore, this is not an impeachment inquiry. It is merely a political stunt.
I've heard that, but as of this morning, I did not hear what the Democrats have actually done. As for the caucus vote idea, that one may not be in this article, since I have not read it all yet.
The article states that Pelosi has just simply made a proclamation that an inquiry is underway. There was no formal vote. At this point, just so much hot air.
10.1.19:
10:30 am:
As of this writing, the Dems are propagandizing that they now have authority under their claimed impeachment inquiry to do certain things.
Many of those things may or may not be allowable under the law even if there was a true impeachment inquiry.
Now the thing that is being disputed by the GOP is that this wasn't proper procedure with respect to the inquiry. This required a full House vote, but it may not have. So the question here for me is whether or not this is a valid impeachment inquiry.
In other words, I'm not clear on the subject.
If I am not, how many other people are? Are the Democrats trying to pull a sleight of hand here in trying to fool the public into believing this is a legitimate impeachment inquiry?
In case anybody didn't know, the GOP has been locked out here with this procedural rules change that Pelosi and the Dems rammed through earlier this year.
11:30 am:
So I went on Quora and checked out what an "inquiry" is. It is like an investigation prior to charges being filed. The Democrats changed the procedure earlier this year, so no pushback will be allowed in the House.
Since they have a majority, the House can vote on a partisan basis to impeach, without any defense allowed by the GOP. Seems quite unfair, because this appears to be totally partisan and one-sided.
10.7.19:
This excrement-show is for their own followers, not the rest of us. Their followers believe every word their leaders tell them to believe.
The reason their own followers are fooled is because their own followers are too dumb to realize that their leaders are lying to them.
None of this is going to happen unless their try to run impeachment through on completely arbitrary grounds, which may not get the necessary votes in the House anyway. Much less the Senate.
Total Bovine-excrement kiddos.
10.6.19:
Daily update:
8:20 pm:
A few salient points
- An impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote, that has not occurred.
- A whistleblower who leaks to Congress that which should stay within the bureaucracy is no longer a whistleblower, but just a leaker
- Subpoenas issued from committees that have no jurisdiction have no basis in law, and therefore aren't properly subpoenas
- Subpoenas can be resisted for legal reasons, and are NOT a basis for obstruction
We have a mirage of an impeachment in order to pretend that there is an impeachment. That is because there is no demand for an impeachment, but actually the opposite.
This has lasted about two weeks now. How much longer will this charade continue?
11:54 am:
The author says the people are sovereign. I would disagree. The constitution (CONUS) is sovereign. Nobody swears an oath to support the people, but to support the CONUS. Therefore, the CONUS is sovereign.
Ultimately, the people can change the CONUS, if they collectively decide to do it. This is according to the CONUS itself.
The people surrendered the sovereignty to the CONUS, and can take it back. But how do you do that when the officials who purportedly support it take that away that right?
That is what we are dealing with in Texas.
11:39 am:
The following tweet links to an article that shows that there wasn't a vote in Congress. If they had an actual vote, then it wasn't a formal vote in the House. It was a Democrat caucus vote. Therefore, this is not an impeachment inquiry. It is merely a political stunt.
I've heard that, but as of this morning, I did not hear what the Democrats have actually done. As for the caucus vote idea, that one may not be in this article, since I have not read it all yet.
The article states that Pelosi has just simply made a proclamation that an inquiry is underway. There was no formal vote. At this point, just so much hot air.
If the House Won’t Vote, Impeachment Inquiry Is Just a Democratic Stunt https://t.co/nl39zfIWW0— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 6, 2019
10.1.19:
10:30 am:
As of this writing, the Dems are propagandizing that they now have authority under their claimed impeachment inquiry to do certain things.
Many of those things may or may not be allowable under the law even if there was a true impeachment inquiry.
Now the thing that is being disputed by the GOP is that this wasn't proper procedure with respect to the inquiry. This required a full House vote, but it may not have. So the question here for me is whether or not this is a valid impeachment inquiry.
In other words, I'm not clear on the subject.
If I am not, how many other people are? Are the Democrats trying to pull a sleight of hand here in trying to fool the public into believing this is a legitimate impeachment inquiry?
In case anybody didn't know, the GOP has been locked out here with this procedural rules change that Pelosi and the Dems rammed through earlier this year.
11:30 am:
So I went on Quora and checked out what an "inquiry" is. It is like an investigation prior to charges being filed. The Democrats changed the procedure earlier this year, so no pushback will be allowed in the House.
Since they have a majority, the House can vote on a partisan basis to impeach, without any defense allowed by the GOP. Seems quite unfair, because this appears to be totally partisan and one-sided.
What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda? https://t.co/SrfBh4kKeL— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 1, 2019
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Dental hygiene pointers
Comment:
Always looking for these. Not only that, I am making videos of stuff like this.
Not much of this will go up on YouTube, though. It isn't my stuff, but it is better to record this once, so you don't have to go online to view it every time. You can view it off line.
Saves bandwidth in case it is limited.
Always looking for these. Not only that, I am making videos of stuff like this.
Not much of this will go up on YouTube, though. It isn't my stuff, but it is better to record this once, so you don't have to go online to view it every time. You can view it off line.
Saves bandwidth in case it is limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)