Does the GOP even want to win?

The implausibility of the Democrat's arguments are such that any reasonably intelligent person of intention could blast it to smithereens. Like the late Rush Limbaugh said-- "one half your brain behind your back to make it even".

You cannot support our Constitution and then support those who try to wreck it at the same time. But that's what Democrats do. You cannot fire police and then credibly blame someone else for it. They supported riots that led to police department's defunding, so that's the GOP's fault?!

Where's the GOP on this? Nowhere to be found, evidently. Maybe they're in the Chinese's pockets just like the Democrats are.

The GOP thinks it can win by default. But why just depend upon the usual things, like off-year elections, to carry you to victory? Maybe that won't work if there's too much fraud out there. Also, if you won't even try to win. These guys might lose in a fair fight for all the effort they put in it.

I think this is a winnable fight, but the GOP doesn't show much interest in fighting. It is like 2012, when Romney was gifted with Benghazi, and refused to bash Obama with it. Obama and the Democrats were asking for it, but Romney let himself be silenced like a "good" little boy. Good for nothing is more like it.

The same kind of thing is happening now. The Democrats are leading with a glass jaw. The GOP could deliver a Mike Tyson type punch, and they'd be out for the count. Maybe not even a Mike Tyson punch. Barney Fife could knock these guys out. But they won't lift their fingers.

If they won't fight, we should find others who will.

Can you believe Pelosi?

 

In 2019, Pelosi was asked if she hated Trump. A heated exchanged occurred where she denied that she hated "anyone".

Oh? After reading through some of the conditions to which the prisoners in the dungeon are receiving, one can ask if she really meant that. Pelosi has responsibility for the Capitol Police. If she didn't like the way the prisoners were being treated, wouldn't she be inclined to do something about it?

This business with the political prisoners in the DC dungeon goes beyond that to the question of one's devotion to the Constitution. Once again, Pelosi seemed to make a big deal out of her devotion to the Constitution when she led the impeachment drive against Trump for January 6th.

There was one in which Pelosi said something in support of the Constitution in which you'd swear she was at the Constitutional Convention in the eighteenth century. However, I cannot find it. There are plenty of statements of hers like that, however. If you listen to her, you'd think that this was the most important thing in the entire world to her.

But can it really be true when she allows this to go on with these political prisoners? They are not receiving equal treatment that the summer rioters received. Those folks weren't held without bail and without charges as the Jan 6th people. The claim that these prisoners represent a danger that cannot be risked doesn't square with the criminal records, which don't exist. If they were truly dangerous, wouldn't something else exist in support of that? George Floyd had a criminal record. They made him into a hero. Why the difference?

Many of these folks served in the military and police.

There are those who believe that this could have been an FBI instigated plot, and the ring leader may have been on the FBI payroll. He hasn't been charged. Why not? Has he been questioned? Has he been detained? Why not him, as opposed to some grandma that they "re-educated"?

With respect to the false flag

 

Seems like I've been slipping a bit on this. Evidently there has been more reporting on it than what I've written about, so hopefully, I will do better in the future.

If I uncover something, I will write it up.

Ace has something that got me interested into looking this up more. It's about something on Tablet, which a site that is linked on the sidebar. Furthermore, Julie Kelly's work has been mentioned, there and elsewhere. I'll check into that.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upholds Arizona election law

You can obtain a pdf copy of the decision to read if you wish. I got mine from the CTH blog. There is a link there inside a post which discusses the decision.

In particular, I wanted to read the dissent of the liberals on the court. I read through some of what Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, and I find that it is lacking in persuasiveness.

How is it that a state that allows mail-in voting doing anything discriminatory? It is ridciculous to say that a state that allows mail-in voting at all is in any way being discriminatory.

Arizona's law seems to require a request for a mail-in ballot. If that is too onerous, then all laws in all states that require such a request could have been struck down. Perhaps that is what the liberals were hoping for.

The dissent belabored a lot of discrimination in the past, but from what I read, gave little reason to believe that the current law in Arizona does anything to make it too hard to vote for anyone.

If you can request a ballot by mail, presumably you can also mail the thing in by yourself. It doesn't seem to be a big deal that all you have to do is to fill it out and return it by mail. This may impact some people who have profound issues. However, how much can you do for people of that profound of disability who cannot even fill out and mail a ballot?

You don't have to be a minority to have an issue like that. A severely disabled person may not be able to get around well enough to vote, perhaps. But if it is that bad, how can they be competent enough to vote at all? One might expect at least some competence to exercise the vote.

Such a sentiment may seem unfair, but what can you do about it? The government can only do so much and shouldn't do any more. You cannot guarantee total fairness in all things. To suggest otherwise is silly. For example, it may be unfair that some people are paraplegic. If that impacts their ability to vote, perhaps you could help them. Even not helping isn't discriminatory against them. It's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

The big concern here is about fraud. From what I read in the dissent, there appears to be no concern whatever that fraud could be used to change the outcomes of elections. Before this law could be overturned, it would have to show that fraud is not an issue. But fraud is most definitely an issue. The interest in having election integrity overrides fairness here. That's assuming you AGREE that it is unfair to some people. It should be a tall hurdle to get over in order to rule that an election must be totally fair to all people at all times.

In summary, the complaint did not satisfy a reasonable standard for fairness, nor did it appear to address fraud with respect to the dissent. If it did, then I failed to see it, but I didn't read it all. In my opinion, something else is going on with this complaint than meets the eye. There's no unfairness that I can see. It is almost if the interest of integrity is being tossed aside for the unreachable goal of total fairness. But that may be a guise that may allow the specter of fraud to appear.

If the left wants to be convincing to anybody but zealots, they had better do a whole lot better.

Radio Free America

Tabletmag.com: War on Reality quote: As the mainstream narrative about the origin of COVID-19 falls apart, it’s time to put other widely accepted facts about the virus—and the devastating measures they were used to justify—under the same scrutiny

Comment:

Save America from the Pravda-like media, which is in service to the Deep State, and its henchmen.

More lockdowns coming?

 

There's a bit of discussion out there about a new variant of the so-called cornona virus. It is supposed to be so bad that there may be a push for lockdowns and masks and such.

If that is a thing, then the response needed is resistance. There wouldn't be any "vaccines" necessary or possible if the Zelenko Protocol and the Ivermectin options were to be followed. That is true because the "vaccine" is for emergency only, and can't be allowed if effective treatments are available. These options are effective.

Hence all the "fud" (Fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread about with regards to these two options.

Between the fud and the fudge, there's a whole lot chicanery going on out there.

Best thing to do is to resist the "vaccine". It isn't a "vaccine", it is a gene therapy. The stuff messes with your DNA. No way I'm going to get one of those.

Remember this: you cannot be deceived unless you let someone deceive you. In my own case, until they prove to me conclusively that they have a real vaccine that has gone through all the usual testing, I won't even consider it. Even then, as long as Ivermectin is available, as well as the Zelenko Protocol, I won't get it at all.

See anything familiar

The truth

What is truth? Uh, oh. Back to that question. What does the dictionary say? The ones I am reading are circular. Ooops! Does anyone know what the truth is???

These days, the truth seems to be tribal. It is whatever the tribe says that it is. For me, truth is a quality of being that cannot be contradicted. For example, "water is wet". If you jump into a swimming pool, you'll get wet. If you don't come out of the rain, you will get wet. Wet is wet. There is no debate about that, unless you are crazy.

The gender issue used to be like that. Male was male. Female was female. There were two sexes, or the word we use today --- "gender". Now it is an issue because a tribe has made it an issue. It didn't use to be the case. Sex was sex. You were male or you were female. Case closed. That was the truth of the matter.

Truth itself is now debatable. Anything is debatable, or so it seems. Now we have two tribes arguing about what truth is.

Get down to basics, if you can. Is water wet or not? Do you want to fight over that?

Word definitions may be at the heart of the trouble. You have to have a common understanding of what the words mean.

The people who push the several genders arguments are really talking about social constructs, not biology. If the argument is about what males and females are like, that's one argument. But the other argument is the "x" and "y"'s of biological determination. Two "x"'s means female, one "x" and 1 "y" means male. This is immutable fact. Everything else devolves around the opinions of what that means.

So far, males cannot give birth, or get pregnant. Females cannot impregnate other females. Only males can do that to females. That's the way the biology works. Bruce Jenner impregnated a woman who had his children. No woman can do that regardless of whether Bruce Jenner thinks about being a man when he prefers to be a woman. He is arguing with his biology.

There was a guy down the street when I was back in Houston who was from Iran. He told me that he left that country because the people there believe two plus two equals five. I told him that we have a lot of those people here too.

There are those in academia who are teaching that rational thought is a "patriarchal" thing. If the patriarchal thing is bad, then that must make rational thought bad. This is why I say that the left is teaching people to become blithering idiots. Can idiots know anything when they insist upon being irrational?

Is the COVID thing over? It seems that Democrats believe that it isn't. The GOP mostly believes that it is over. What is the truth of that matter? Well, if you are outnumbered and the most people want to believe that it isn't over, then it isn't over. It's a political argument, not a public health issue.

But what is the truth of the matter? What are we really arguing about? Whether or not people get sick or not? There can be no argument there. People always get sick, and some of them may die. Nobody has figured out how to live forever.

Is the argument about what to do about it? Does wearing a mask work, or does it make you feel good about yourself because it shows that you CARE? If the masks don't work and are counter-productive, caring only gets you sicker. If that's the case, I'd rather not care. I don't give a shit what you think about that.

If you really want to care about something, why not care about the use of words, and the use of discourse. If the idea is to reach agreements and consensus, then we need to find common areas that we can agree on. It seems that people out there are finding the opposite and looking for excuses to fight over it.

We cannot shut everything down forever. Can anybody agree upon that one? Or does everything have to degenerate into a fight? The people who are looking for a fight might need to get one to be satisfied.

What is the truth of the matter? Do these people constantly and forever want to provoke a fight. If that is the case, maybe it is high time to recognize that truth, and get to the point of the matter.

A question that a climate alarmist cannot answer

There are so many videos out there. With little to do this afternoon, I happened upon one that gave me an idea for this post. The video was about super-volcanos. There was one in the Earth's geologic past that was so bad that it wiped out almost ALL life on the planet.

That gave me the idea for this post. After all, these people say that it is mankind that is endangering life on this planet. But here's nature itself as a far greater menace.

The question is this: what can you do about a super-volcano of this magnitude? The climate alarmists cannot answer the question without betraying the fact that nature is of far greater impact than humans are.

If you doubt that, imagine a volcanic lava flow that would cover most of the USA under hundreds of feet of lava. Such an event did happen, as mentioned earlier in this post. If such a thing happened, and we had advanced knowledge of it about to happen, what could be done? I would venture that not a doggone thing could be done. It is too powerful for us to be able to change it in any way whatsoever.

Even if we had a century to prepare, we couldn't do anything but maybe get some people off the Earth so that humankind could have some survivors to carry on. That's all you could hope to do. Or perhaps go deep underground and use nuclear power to survive on until the dust cleared!

If we cannot hope to change the forces of nature, that leaves ourselves to control each other. That's what's going on here. One group of humans forcing another group of humans to change their behavior according to their dictates. That's all it is. It is not about the Earth. The Earth is just too darned big for us to do anything about.

#Unseriousness: While Putin Plans for a Real War in Ukraine, Obama's People Are Focused Like Lasers on Winning the Only War That Matters, the Facebook/Twitter War

Update:

It seems that somebody, who remains nameless because I didn't take notes of it, said that this was no longer a "serious country".

This would be another instance of somebody out there who has come to the same conclusions I have. Note that this post was written over 7 years ago. Nothing has changed. In fact, it is getting steadily worse.

Two things stand out today. One is the Maricopa county audit. If they were serious, then shouldn't this be expedited? It seems to be taking WAY too long.

The second is a Supreme Court ruling that lets the transgender agenda stand. Er, was this supposed to be a CONSERVATIVE court? A liberal court could have done the very same thing. Surely, you cannot be serious????

You could probably go through the whole she-bang of everything written on the conservative side, and not find hardly anything serious at all. Just a whole lot of nothing.

The original was posted in April of 2014...

Ace

Let us posit that if Putin wishes a military campaign against Ukraine, and Obama plans in response a Twitter campaign, Putin will gladly let Obama have his Fake Social Media "Victory" in exchange for a real world victory.--- Ace

comment:

If you claim to be a serious country, you don't elect somebody like Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.  This country stopped being serious a long time ago.  If we were to get serious now, we'd start patching up this good ship lollypop and we might not sink.  But that isn't guaranteed.

A method to the madness

Gee-whiz, there's a lot more to this song than I ever imagined. Dang. You need a PHD to get through this breakdown.

How does "yippy-yi-yo-ti-yay" fit into all this? I quit watching before getting to that part.

Off-grid post, 6.27.21

 

What a surprise. There were no seeds that germinated on the first go-round. But there sure were this time. Every single one of them has germinated. Unfortunately, there was no way to keep them all, except one. There first one was kept, the rest were rooted out.

They all had good roots, so maybe this bodes well for the growth of the remaining one.

Even with this nice little news, progress seems very slow. There's no way for it to go any faster.

But there's no stopping experimentation with other plants. Actually, there is. Since this thing will stay inside, it will have to fit into the place that's available. This may not work too well in the long run, but that remains to be seen.

I'd like to try a self-wicking bucket concept. There's a trash bucket, but it has some cracks in it, and therefore, will leak. You can buy this stuff, of course, but buying stuff is not what I want to do if I can avoid it. Maybe I can work out something.

Eventually, the seedling needs to be transplanted to a bigger container. That may be sooner rather than later.

Anyway, that's it for now.