Should Biden be impeached?

Of course. The GOP is gearing up for more failure theater, though. What the GOP habitually does is to fail, and look helpless while doing it. Otherwise known as failure theater. The goal is to make the real opponents of the left think that there will be accountability, when they know that they need cooperation to make that succeed, and they'll have none of that.

But shutting down the government didn't require any cooperation from the Democrats. Instead of shutting down the government, they gave them trillions of dollars of new money to spend, most of which will undermine the things that the GOP claims to be in their agenda.

So I'm not impressed even if they get Biden to resign. They won't. By the way, someone asked Joe Biden about the impeachment possibility, and he laughed. What's Joe laughing at? Or should I ask WHO? Does anyone really need to ask?

If the government had been shut down, it would have affected only a portion of government. Tax revenues would still pour in, and the government would have plenty of money to spend. The "shut down" as it is called, would only have affected a portion of government. Big deal. There wouldn't have been a default. All government debts could be serviced through the funds from taxation.

They've had shut downs before, but the GOP managed to makes failures out of those, too. The entire point of everything they do is to fool people into thinking something that isn't true. Also, they'll claim that they can do nothing.

People keep lapping it up, though.

Not me. Not this time. Hopefully not again. For now on, I'm going to question all sources of information. Doesn't matter who says it. Liberals hate that. But I suspect that the GOP isn't really any different. If they were, there wouldn't be so much failure theater. Liberals cannot match the GOP for mendacity. Liberals will lie to their enemies, meaning us. Which is exactly what the so-called conservatives love to do, too.

Wefunder campaign, LPP Fusion

 

Evidently, LPP Fusion still hasn't reached their secondary goals. That's because they are still sending out messages asking for more. The last I heard ( not counting this morning) was that they were about 10k short.

This latest solicitation is another one of those head-scratchers. So it got me to thinking. I'm relating this to all of the other stuff going on these days. I've come to the conclusion that the world is not such a nice place. It's an honest assessment. A bullshit assessment would be all hearts and flowers. Sheesh, World War III could break out at any time.

I've got a problem with the way this is being presented. Fossil fuels really isn't the problem. That would be true even if fossil fuels were really fouling up the Earth. I don't believe that it is, but again, that's not the problem. The problem is hard to put my finger on.

If their idea is to tap into hatred in order to destroy the fossil fuel industry, well this approach might make sense. But THOSE guys aren't serious, if that's the case. That's because if there was any way that they could destroy the fossil fuel industry, this could be the way. If the idea was to make the world better, this way could be the way. But the pitch is to people who don't care about what they say that they care about. Consequently, the message falls flat. If you tap into fossil fuel hatred, the haters should be beating a path to your door way. But they're not. They're being false with everyone. So why count on THEM?

If there's any reason they may fall short of their goals, it is that they are using a method and a result that isn't in keeping with the intended audience. The real audience should be people who are concerned that they, and their posterity, will not have a secure energy future. Their motivation would be goodwill, not hatred. A solution to the energy question would benefit ALL. There is no need for hatred. You should pursue this way because it is best possible way forward, PROVIDED that everyone wants a more secure and bountiful future.

Their method is free enterprise and the profit motive. But their audience is the people who hate that, and want to overturn it. LPP's efforts are in the best tradition of American Free Enterprise. It should be no surprise that the Greenies aren't much interested in it, even though it promises everything that they claim to want. If they wanted a clean energy future, where the hell are they???

The profit motive will work for this, provided that their research succeeds. Even if they don't, it is worth a try. The amount to invest is really small, and the reward could be unlimited. This pitch would be the best approach to follow.

Going down the road of hatred is ignoble, and it is base. It will not produce the results desired, if those are the results truly desired.

It's a shame. If this goes bust, I lose a couple hundred bucks. I can deal with that. Like I said before, it's low risk, high reward. For a couple hundred, a person could get on the ground floor of something really big. The sky would be the limit.

The Texas Legislature impeached this man

 

Citizen Free Press

I've been asked why I go after Republicans. Here's why. Because of what this man did, Texas went to Trump in 2020. The way Paxton tells it, that is. If you want to believe him, that is.

I choose to believe him because I don't believe Biden got 81 million votes. Paxton discusses how they were trying to steal Texas, and how he stopped it. Now the Texas Legislature, which is Republican, decided that Paxton has to go. The one man who might make a difference, and they want to get rid of him. To me, that says it all.

It may not do any good to get rid of Republicans who won't fight. But the way Paxton tells it, it looks a lot worse than that! The GOP is actually HELPING the Democrats steal elections. It's insane, but I think it is the truth.

There you have it.

Frankly, from what Paxton says here, it's just about a lost cause. At best, the GOP does nothing. At worst, the GOP is an active participant in the destruction of the right to vote. For bringing that to everyone's intention, it looks like the Texas Legislature wants to punish Paxton.

Not voting for the GOP may not be enough! We are in a bad spot here.

Orion nuclear pulse rocket rocket research of the 1950's

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) sizes of vehicles

One of the problems of space propulsion is the limits of chemically powered rockets. This causes a nightmare of having to build super large rockets that can only propel a spacecraft to limited objectives. So, the question is this: can nuclear power be used effectively? It so happens that a lot of research was done in this area in the fifties, but ended due to policy decisions.

Elon Musk's rockets are pushing the boundaries of chemically powered rockets to their maximum. Thanks to his work, it appears that the task of getting a payload to Earth orbit could remove launch costs to the point to where useful spinoffs could be contemplated. One of these may be to use nuclear power in deep space. Since it is deemed a problem to use this on the ground, perhaps the objection would be less if this was done in space. Perhaps.

The 50's research reveals that the bombs seemed quite small. Even smaller than the "suitcase nukes" that are mentioned from time to time. Peeling around the mysterious of jargon here, a small nuke, if feasible, could yield just 30 tons. You are almost getting in the region of a large conventional bomb here.

The advantage would be in the amount of yield in relation to the mass expended. This is why the use of chemical rockets are so limited. Musk needs a 400 ft tall rocket to get to orbit. True, it carries a large payload, but it is rather huge. Once it is in orbit, it has a lot of extraneous mass that gets in its own way. He will need to refuel multiple times in order to get to the moon for the Artemis project. The Apollo project utilized a mass shedding strategy that left only a 30k pound lunar lander. More than one way to skin the cat. But back to the nuclear option...

Reading down into the linked article, each bomb may weigh less than 500 pounds. It gives an explosive yield of 30 tons or more. The article isn't clear on that, though. If the numbers are meaningful, then it is a ratio of 12 to 1 in terms of yield. It is probably more than that, though. The amount of energy in a nuclear explosion is a factor of 1 million times greater. If it is only 12, that is too low. In any case, there is much more yield per pound expended, which would translate into a much more powerful rocket.

The article gets a little vague, so not much more can be gleaned than that.

Previously on the blog, it was proposed, and may actually be studied right now, is to use a fission fragment device. It wouldn't be an explosion, but it would use fission fragment as the reaction mass. Such seems to be rather elaborate. Why not just blow the damned thing up like Project Orion? Could the explosions be minaturized so much that they wouldn't be so much different than chemical power?

That is to say, what if a fissionable mass was embedded into this aerogel mixture, and was caused to explode? The aerogel weighs almost nothing. Could a means of detonating the thing be set up in much the same way as the Orion project? The explosion could propel the spacecraft towards its destination. Perhaps a yield even smaller than 60 tons could be achieved. Perhaps it could be quite small. The advantages would be in a high thrust and high ISP nuclear propelled rocket.

Did the decision makers give up too soon?

Democrats now favor oppression and censorship by almost 3 to 1

Behind the Black Blog: Democrats now favor oppression and censorship by almost 3 to 1

Comment:

There has been a shift in opinion, according to this. As recently as 2018, there wasn't any difference between Republicans or Democrats. But now, the Democrats have switched over to favoring censorship by a large margin.

The truth is that the Democrats have ALWAYS been in favor of censorship. But they are open about it now. For example, The late Rush Limbaugh had a TV show, in which he demonstated the attitude of the left. He hid his face behind the dot, as he introduced himself on his first TV show. It was done in humor, but there has always been that component in of the Democrat psyche. They ALWAYS wanted to "flush Rush".

Now that it is all out in the open, what is to be done about it?

A related story:

Study: Democrat Support for Violence to Coerce Members of Congress, Restore Federal Right to Abortion Rises

Comment:

The article also said that there was hope that the Trump indictments would REDUCE his support, but has radicalized Republicans instead. More indictments would mean even further radicalization.

Starship update, 7-26-23 (video)

 

The video has no narration.

Not a whole lot that's new. Some updates I've watched didn't say if the methane tanks were filled with methane or nitrogen. This video says nitrogen.

Obviously, there is no extra ring on the booster yet. This will have to be installed, as the quick disconnect has already been altered in order to accomodate the greater height added to the stack by that hot staging ring. This means that the ship isn't ready for flight yet. It's not really that close.

There may be things like spin primes and static fires, but since there needs to be some work done on the booster itself, these tests seem a bit out of sequence. Do they do these things first, and then add the ring? Seems like this is what they're doing. Maybe you get the hardware part done first, then the tests.

Some are forecasting a readied ship by the end of August. The FAA will still have to issue a license to launch. It's not clear when that will be.

A bit of speculation: The FAA will issue a launch license shortly after the court dismisses the law suit. That's IF they dismiss the lawsuit.

With that, I turn it over to the video...

A bonus video. Something about a fusion rocket. Is this the same one that the Angry Astronaut was talking about?

The Kennedy Assassination: Inside the Book Depository

comment:

It's not likely to change anybody's mind. It didn't change mine.

If I were to make a video about the JFK assassination, I would make it short. That's because an excess of words isn't necessary. The elements are simple, so why focus on the other things?

RFK, a throwback to an earlier time

In a sense, he is an impressive candidate. Way out there ahead of them all. While listening, I'm wondering if the things he passionately defends are possible anymore in this country. That is, respect for each other. We can disagree without hating each other. We can listen, and even if we don't agree, we can be friends. That seems to have gone out the window. It's a shame.



On the other hand, there are those who might look upon this as naive. It might be. If you treat someone who has bad intentions as someone who has good intentions, you just might get creamed. Just saying.

Canadian truckers won everything?

What's with the crazy name, anyway?

Canadian truckers won everything

An essay on substack claims that the Canadian trucker protest basically defeated the intentions of "Castreau", aka Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. He says the protest was "wildly immediately successful".

He notes that people do not understand Canadian politics. Well, he's got me there.

He has some pretty critical things to say about the Canadian Senate. If so, that would include something not corrected at that time. Castreau is still in power, too.

They did seem to succeed in stopping the worst of the COVID madness in Canada. But not the rot that was responsible for it. That seems a bit incomplete.

It may help to get a better name for yourselves. The name looks like "anarchy". People don't want that. At least not people that are in their right minds.

Candor not wanted

Brutally candid political ad from Trump causes some alarm...

Frank Luntz: "This is the most alarming political ad I've seen this year".

But nothing Brandon does alarms him. Strange how that works.



I figured Luntz for a Democrat, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. He seems to be a guy who crafts phrases that are meant to help out with messaging. So the kind of ad that Trump put together would not be something that he would do. Those were different times, when Luntz worked with Gingrich and Bush.

I see Trump's ad is very harsh. But how will people take it? If Luntz is right, they may blame Trump for what Trump is reacting to. Whatever you may think, I think this kind of reaction to Trump is misguided. Otherwise, these people could not have done any of what they have indeed done, such as doing things that are unprecedented against Trump.

My point is why not go after Trump on the issues? Instead, they go after him PERSONALLY. Then they claim that he is setting up a cult of personality. If they don't want that, then why go after him PERSONALLY?

The key to understanding our predicament

With leftists, it's not about what they say it is about. Let's look at AGW again...



The man says that carbon dioxide increased even though human production of carbon decreased. Nature regulates the amount of carbon dioxide, not humans. The decrease of human activity that leads to carbon dioxide production will not affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We can't change it even if we wanted to.

There have been arguments against AGW forever, it seems. But the issue doesn't go away. It doesn't go away because the issue isn't about what is supposed to be about. There was something on American Thinker that discusses this.

Do leftists believe what they claim to believe?

Basically it boils down to leftism itself. It is about societal warfare. As Sun Tsu said about war, warfare is all about deception. In other words, they are lying in order to further their conquest. Yet, their opponents continually make the mistake of thinking they are engaging in a legitimate debate. There isn't one. It's about their revolution.

This doesn't just apply to AGW. It applies across the board. Thus, the leftists go after Trump, but it isn't about "rule of law", nor "Democracy". It is about their revolution.

People may think it odd that I oppose the left, but bash the GOP. Well, the GOP doesn't recognize, nor appears to be willing to recognize, that it is engaged in a war, and they are being targeted for destruction. If someone wants to destroy you, it would seem wise to recognize that, and fight back. But they don't, and that's why we keep sinking further and further into despotism.

Sun Tsu said also about war that if you don't know your enemy, you have at best a 50-50 chance of winning. If you don't know yourself nor your enemy, you are hopeless. It begins to appear that way with way too many people on the so-called "right". At best, we have a 50-50 chance, but even that is way too optimistic. The GOP needs to smarten up, or it is about to become extinct.

Starship 27 cut in half? Why?

7-25-23: Update to post of Jul 24, 2023

The flyover reveals that the dome caved in on S27. Perhaps that is the reason why it is being scrapped.

the original post:

 

Ship 27 was never fitted with heat shield tiles. It may not have undergone any other testing either. It has been suggested that it was intended as a test article for the lunar lander. If so, then why cut it up? Is it intended for other purposes, or is it intended to be scrapped?

It may be jumping to conclusions, unless those who say this have a reliable source, who says that it will be scrapped.

If it isn't being scrapped, then it is intriguing to speculate about the decision to cut it in half. Presumably, the bottom half is where the tanks and the engines are located. The upper half would contain the crew and cargo sections.

A tantalizing thought would have them outfitting the halves so as to be able to detach them from each other once in lunar orbit. It makes a lot of sense to not carry all the excess cargo all the way down to the surface. The extra weight will serve no purpose, and will require extra fuel to get it landed and back into lunar orbit.

SpaceX may not care about that. It is kinda of an inelegant solution, though. Furthermore, a ship that can detach like that would have a lot more capability. With the fuel savings, it could propel itself from lunar orbit back to Earth orbit, or so it would seem. That means a single Starship could be reusable. Now that would be elegant.

Maybe they will make no changes at all. But it is fun to speculate on what SpaceX will do with it now.

AGW is a Big Lie

 

Definition of "temperature". Source is from a search engine.

Temperature describes the average kinetic energy of molecules within a material or system and is measured in Celsius (°C), Kelvin (K) and Fahrenheit (°F). Concluding, we can say that heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature between molecules.

Do you know where I am going with this? Or, shall I explain further? Kinetic energy is that type of energy that is from movement of matter. It would have a velocity. Consequently, if you walk down the street, the motion of your body is kinetic energy. The faster you go, the more kinetic energy you have. If you were like Superman, and you were faster than a speeding bullet, then you'd have a lot of kinetic energy. If Superman ran into a building in Metropolis, there'd be a big crash.

Temperature involves a lot of molecules or atoms, and their motion within whatever it is. If it is a bar of gold, and it isn't melting, but at room temperature, then it is pretty solid. If you hold an ice cube in your hand, it will melt. What's holding it together then? Well, "something" is. In a particular "system" like an ice cube, the material is held together by some sort of bond. When it warms up, it melts. When it melts, it is no longer an ice cube, but a puddle of water in your hand, or on whatever it is on.

It is probably fair to say that the melting ice has more kinetic energy in it than when it came out of the freezer. Referring back to the definition, its average kinetic energy has gone up.

What happens to a gas, then? In Elon Musk's rocket engines, two very cold liquids are burned, which produces a lot of gas. It is directed out of a nozzle at high speed, which produces thrust that moves the rocket off the ground and into orbit. Lots of kinetic energy is produced, which gets the rocket to orbit. That rocket's exhaust must be moving pretty fast, huh? Yup, and it is very hot. It will blast a hole in the ground, like it did at Starbase back in April.

What happened to the gases from that rocket exhaust? They kicked up a lot of material and made a "rock tornado". While it was doing that, it cooled down, now didn't it? It lost all that kinetic energy, and its temperature went down.

So here's the question. How does a gas in the atmosphere hold kinetic energy? It can't. A gas is free to go wherever. There's nothing to bind it together like it was when it was a liquid. It will go off in any direction unless it is somehow contained. If it is in the atmosphere, it will rise up high in the air, like the rocket exhaust from Elon Musk's rockets. When it is doing that, it will lose kinetic energy and cool down.

Global warmists want you to believe that it will act like a solid, and keep its shape. But a gas has no shape, and therefore the higher kinetic energy will go wherever it wants unless it is somehow constrained. In the atmosphere of a planet like Earth, gravitation pull will keep it from leaving the Earth and going out into space. But it WILL rise until it cannot rise further due to its lack of kinetic energy. While doing so, it gets cold.

Gases will expand into a system, thereby creating higher pressure according to the gas laws. But there's no lid on Earth, so if a gas gets hot enough, it will leave the atmosphere entirely. But that doesn't happen, because there's not enough energy being applied to it.

In other words, the idea that carbon dioxide will increase the average kinetic energy of the atmosphere is ridiculous on its face. If you cannot see that, then I don't know what else I could tell you.

How to stop the next vaccine mandates

Karen Kingston substack

More COVID news:

Nate Silver calls for Fauci COVID origins paper to be RETRACTED after new chat messages suggest scientists “engaged in gross misconduct”

Note: The following link requires registration in order to read it, so I didn't

Epoch Times Link: CDC knew that the jabs weren't working, so they stealth edited the definition of "breakthrough case" to pretend that they were rare



GOP Capitulation to COVID caveats



3rd World countries had a better COVID death record than America

Democrat Party was the party of insurrection and slavery

The history of the Democrat Party is being hidden.

Archaeologist David Keys reveals that a volcano is to blame for the Dark Ages of famine and plague

Archaeologist David Keys reveals that a volcano is to blame for the Dark Ages of famine and plague

The volcano is suspected to be Krakatoa, which is the same volcano that erupted in the late nineteenth century. That eruption is also blamed for the drop in temperatures that occurred afterwards.

In my opinion, it is not the gases that came from the volcano, but the solid material that affected the climate. This makes sense, although a reflective cloud may also have an effect. If the sun doesn't reach the surface, then the ground cannot heat up. The surface is where most life exists, so when it gets cold, it harms life.

Also, it once again shows that natural forces have far more impact on the Earth than humans do. People would be as helpless today as they were then. If the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts, what can anybody do about it? That one has devasted the North American continent many times in the past, and will do so again at some point.

Humans can prepared for these real events, and thus help ourselves. The AGW crowd doesn't help things any by fostering untrue beliefs, such as anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, their work should be viewed as the work of an enemy who seeks to cause harm.

The eruption changed history. Why not learn from it?

with that, here's the video...

More on the subject:

Underwater volcano injects water into stratosphere, which could cause WARMING

Data's Life forms song

Crybabies threaten to leave GOP

 

Threats to leave GOP are not serious.

Leaving the party won't get them re-elected. For those who have done this, the track record is clear.

It echoes the threat to leave the country if a GOP nominee wins. The lefties don't do it , and if they did, they'd be back.

Also, the Wisconsin Supreme Court election shows what happens when GOP'ers run against their base. Nope, what these guys do is to pretend that they are conservative, then govern as liberals. So if they left, it wouldn't matter to the GOP, and the left wouldn't take them in, anyway.

The left prefers REAL commies, not fakes. If you're a fake, better run as a Republican. They'll vote for fakes in the GOP. Nearly all of them are fakes, to varying degrees.