Did Trump and Putin Just Kill London’s Oil Game?

My question is how does this affect the price? Who is accepting delivery and what guarantee that they charge the prices at the pump that they already are charging?

Which would you prefer?

Fear-mongering or optimism?

Separate the wisdom from the foolishness

This video seems like something I've seen before. Ok, a thought just came to me. 'There's nothing new under the sun. All is vanity.'

Does that do anything? Probably nothing good.

UK's war on America

The actual title is "Trump's War on the City of London".

Sometimes a book can be judged by its cover. But this video is really about London's War on the USA---long before Trump arrived on the scene. This goes back 125 years.

So the title of my post doesn't square with the video's title.

I jipped to this bit about Canada's elbows up attitude, and how it squares with London's interests in keeping America under its thumb.

Wet Blanket Power

An example of what Wet Blanket Power is.

Flight 14 was an amazing success, yet there are people out there calling it a failure because the rocket exploded out in the Pacific.

There's power in being hyper-negative, or the New York Times wouldn't be doing it.

SpaceX will make money off Flight 14. Not bad for an experimental rocket still in development.

The 250 year British plot to destroy the American system

The plot consists of actions that resulted in the War of 1812, the assassination of Lincoln and McKinley, the radical 60's counter-culture movement, leftists in Hollywood and more...

Perhaps this will help understand who the enemy truly is...

Flight 14 Just Left SpaceX's rivals terrified

Can you imagine the leftists giving Elon Musk a ticker tape parade in New York City??? Nope. They'd like to destroy SpaceX if they could.

It would be for no other reason than Elon Musk taking away their monopoly over information when he bought Twitter.

The guy who made this video doesn't say that. By not saying it, it is like pulling your punches. So I just threw one. Somebody needs to do it. This is glorious news for the USA, but the political left hates it. That's all you need to know about the political left.

Flight 14 in the history books

It looks like a complete success. Good splashdown for the booster. Good splashdown for the Ship. It went orbital as planned. It deployed the Starlink satellites.

But something hangs like a dark cloud over it all.

Maybe it is just me. Maybe it isn't as big an accomplishement as I think it should be.

Alan Shepard got a ticket tape parade, if memory serves. So I asked AI. Did he get one? The answer:

Ticket Tape Parade for Alan Shepard

Overview

Yes, there was a ticker tape parade for Alan Shepard following his historic suborbital flight in 1961. This event celebrated his achievement as the first American in space.

Details of the Parade

Date: The parade took place shortly after Shepard's flight on May 5, 1961. Location: The celebration occurred in New York City, a traditional site for such parades honoring American heroes.

Significance: The event marked a significant moment in the early space race, showcasing national pride and excitement about space exploration.

Context of the Space Race

Alan Shepard's flight was a pivotal moment for the United States, occurring shortly after the Soviet Union's Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.

The ticker tape parade was part of a broader public enthusiasm for space exploration during the early 1960s, which included various media portrayals and public discussions about the future of space travel.

This celebration highlighted the importance of Shepard's achievement and the growing interest in the U.S. space program.

Comment:

A short observation, and then I will quit. I recall this because I was alive at the time. I remember this country as being a lot more patriotic. There's a lack of patriotism. It all seemed to start in the sixties. Shepherd's ticket tape would be probably one of the last of these kind of events.

That's it. That's all I will say. Something has changed in this country. It doesn't look like a good thing to me.

Not angry, just scared

There seems to be a never ending chicken little mentality going on right now. The latest seems to be in the form of the SpaceX critic called the Angry Astronaut.

It's time to get real scared again, folks. So here it comes. I'll embed, and then comment afterward.



Comment:

Didja get real good and scared? Ooo! So scary.

Not to make too light of the concerns here, but I did detect something that he didn't mention. Maybe more than one thing.



Angry's main argument is about the possibility of a failed engine re-light after a long "cold-soak".

Let's start with the premise that it is baked in as a 10 hr. "cold soak". It may not last 10 hrs. To my knowledge, it is being constantly monitored. The "cold-soak" will last up to 10 hrs. He makes it seem like if there's an commit to orbit, it will have to last 10 hrs. Where's his evidence for that? There isn't one.

There are multiple scenarios as options in case the Starship must come down early. It doesn't necessarily mean a failed re-light is certain. That would have to mean a host of failures, one would presume. The point is that there's redundancy built-in. Multiple engines means multiple opportunities even for just one to re-light. Only one engine would be needed...

The point being that a number of things would have to go wrong in order for the worst case scenario to happen. Which brings me to his most glaring omission.

If the engines don't re-light, there's a lot of propellant onboard. The Starship can dump massive amounts of propellant and get enough thrust to slow it down. How do I know this? In earlier flights, they've had massive propellant dumps. So they've done it before. Even though this was not explicitly to return to Earth, it is being suggested as a way to soft-land on the Moon.

In other words, the engines do not have to re-light in order to get sufficient thrust to re-enter the atmosphere.

While the Angry Astronaut does seem to raise valid points, he is glossing over some important details.

So I think he's just ginning up the fear because there's an audience for the Musk-haters out there.

Something fishy here

9/23/26:

Good News - Diesel and Gasoline Prices Set to Collapse in Roughly 60-Days

Comment:

Rigged elections. Rigged markets. Censorship. Yep. It all makes sense. We like to pretend we're free, but it ain't so. The commies like to pretend it's a demcoracy, but it ain't so. Will truth prevail, or will the constant lies win?

9/10/26:

Update:

Somebody is spreading FUD---Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Oil prices are being bid up. Rumors are being spread that Russia and China are aiding Iran. The specter of war spreading all over is bullhorned globally. Ask yourselves this: Cui bono? Who benefits? This is a fear campaign before a crucial election here in the USA. There needs to be an answer.

9/8/26:

Just a brief comment here about the oil prices.

Prices are near $100 a barrel again, and that doesn't make a lick of sense. If pricing was following supply and demand, then current prices seem too high to me. The reasons given sound like a load of bull, too.

If the oil flow is restored to what it was previously, then why the elevated prices?

Something here doesn't add up. That's all I want to say on that.

It has a bad smell to it. Where that smell is coming from is what we should be finding out about.

Cornyn won't vote against the communist

9/21/26:

Kurt Schlichter rips them a new one.

Betrayal is nothing new.

Betrayal doesn't mean a thing without all the pledges. Know what I mean, Vern?

BTW, that was from a Hemmingway novel. Some say Hemmingway was a commie. I suppose betrayal is a problem with the other side too. Indeed, as it is said in the movie... "All men betray, all lose heart."



So raise a glass and make a toast to the turncoats. They're everywhere. Like roaches.

9/20/26: The original post is below:

Because he is said to be "racist".

Comment:

I've read the article and the complaint against French, and it seems pretty mild to me. It is good to see Cornyn go. What an idiot.

Quick update:

The one is right out of the commie playbook, and the soft-headed bunch of GOP'ers are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. What a bunch of nitwits.

What can be done?

It's all good to identify the problem, but what do you do about it?

There may not be any good options. Time is running out.

Communion-and-Care by James Howard Kunstler

“The female mind — especially in matters of political significance — struggles with understanding authority and rule enforcement.” —JD Haltigan on X

Read on Substack

Why Trump seems unpopular

Not too long after 9-11, blogs were a new thing. It is also before Twitter and Facebook came along and sucked all the oxygen out of the room. There was a guy named Bill Whittle, and he wrote a piece in his blog, which was called Eject! Eject! Eject!

It was largely about the tribes people are in. He called them pink and grey. The pink tribe is basically the left. The grey tribe is basically the so-called right.

Rather than rehash all he said, I want to focus in on a particular stretch of the rather long essay. He spoke of the Vietnam Colonel who said there were basically 3 kinds of people. He said there were 1) wolves 2) sheep, and 3) the sheep dogs.

As you might expect, he pointed out that the wolves feed upon the sheep without mercy. It is the sheep dog that guards the sheep. One thing about the sheep dog. The sheep don't like the sheep dog. The sheep dog seems a lot like the wolf. But the sheep dog never harms the sheep. The sheep dog protects the sheep.

I remember this passage and I think of Trump. Why don't people like Trump? The reason is that he seems too much like the wolf. He does mean Tweets, for heavens sake. The sheep are as frightened of the sheep dog as they are of the wolf. Perhaps the sheep do not understand that sheep dog means no harm, and actually to the contrary. I see Trump like the sheep dog. The folks just don't appreciate the guy, and what he is doing for the country.

Instead, they'd rather listen to the wolves in sheep's clothing. That would be the commies. It isn't the Democrats. There was a time when Democrats weren't out and out wolves. But they now taste the sheep's blood, and they're developing a taste for it. Beware the wolves in sheep's clothing.

The commies are making something of a mistake though. They are being a bit too blunt about their intentions. When James Carveille said to add two states and pack the Supreme Court, then the sheep SHOULD'VE recognized the wolf shedding his sheep costume. That was a grab for power that only a wolf would even think of.

When 9-11 happened, people were looking for a sheep dog. That is where the sheep will instinctively turn when they sense they're in danger. They sure as hell didn't turn to the Democrats. The Democrats have turned to a wolfish state that the commies inhabit. You cannot tell the difference anymore. Indeed, there isn't any difference.

Trump is helping the country. The liars, meaning commies, are trying to convince you to be afraid of the sheep dog. This is a misdirection intended to fool you into trusting them. If they can make a grab for power like this, they should NEVER be trusted.

The Constitution was written in such a way that the sheep can be productive and FREE. The wolves intend to take away the Bill of Rights and the Checks and Balances, which keep the government in check. Why would anything but a wolf want to do away with those protections?

Trump won't do that. But Carville has already spilled the beans. The modern Democrat party WILL do that. They want the sheep to believe that Trump is the wolf, but they lie. Don't believe it. The commies are the wolves. Make no mistake about that.

Hey, it ain't Russia per se. It is China and the EU

Methinks they're interfering in our elections. Quick, quick! The smelling salts! I think I'm going to faint.../snark

In other words, the pinkos don't mind interference when it benefits them. But their accusations were wrong anyway. That's because they're just a bunch of damned liars.

Fake news

Accusations based upon no evidence CAN be used to stir up trouble. The article link describes two such cases-- one in the past, and one in the present.

Here's the trouble: If there's no freedom of speech, the other side of the story does not get mentioned. If you have only one side of the story, you are going to be misled.

Keep in mind that the DSA wants to eliminate all the checks and balances, and end the Bill of Rights. Don't think so? Based upon what I've seen that is what they're planning.

For example, if the filibuster is removed, then they can pass any law they want. Even if it is plainly unconstitutional. Why? They want to pack the Supreme Court with their own people--the same people who want to end the 2nd Amendment, and you might as well include the 1st Amendment as well. All the other rights in the Bill of Rights will go too. No checks and balances. No Bill of Rights. Just one party dicatorial rule by communists. Thus, if a law is plainly unconstitutional, it won't matter because the leftist court will say anything that fits their agenda is constitutional. Who could argue with the Supreme Court and its authority? They are counting on that kind of unbridled power.

The dishonesty certainly doesn't stop with hoaxes like the article mentioned. The James Carville types don't want to tell you these things, but as he said, "don't run on it, just do it". That is a form of dishonesty too. In fact, it is plain out and out FRAUD.

Is that what you doomers and black pillers really want?

Tricking conservatives?

New psy-op, it says.

Comment:

What is "conservative"? You have to have a solid understanding of what the words mean, or the words mean nothing. Lots of folks are out there claiming to be "conservative", but what does that even mean?

Perhaps it is part of the post-modernist trend of stupefying folks into failing to make distinctions.

For instance, the Democrat Socialists ( DSA ) want to abolish two of the three branches. Is it conservative to join with that? What does it mean, then to be "conservative"? Do you favor the Constitution, and the process of changing the law, as opposed to issuing fiats in place of it? The DSA would prefer fiats. How do you make the changes to the US Constitution without the amendment process? Just pack the Supreme Court, and have the judiciat fiats determine what the law is. That isn't what the law says, but if a bunch of leftist activists say let's just have the Supreme Court change the law of the land according to their preferences, then what use is the Constitution?

How then is it "conservative" to allow this? But if someone can be "confused" enough to join with the left in doing what Carville says that the Dems should do without talking about it, then what does it even mean to be "conservative"?

I would think that a "conservative" would adhere to the process of amending the Constitution as opposed to have a block of leftist activists changing the law by FIAT.

If you are "conservative", then ask yourself if you can be so easily confused as to agree with it is a good idea to allow Democrats to pack the Supreme Court, add new leftist states that would lock in Democrat rule forever, and end any hope of getting away from the leftist activism.

The claim that "conservatives" can be so easily confused, if true, would suggest that the word has no meaning anymore. If you can be so easily confused, it must mean that the word isn't what you think it is.

What does the word mean, then?

Do you prefer the packing of the Supreme Court? Do you favor adding new states that guarantee a Democrat majority forever? Do you favor the end of the filibuster, so that they can ram anything through Congress that they want?

How can any "conservative" be confused by that choice? If they're confused, then maybe they should get themselves un-confused.



If "consent of the governed" loses all meaning because the Democrats are the only real game in town, then what does that even mean??? Are "conservatives" really all that easy to confuse? I would suggest that they're not really conservative at all.

But that's what post-modernism does. The distinctions loses their meaning. Anyone can say that they're conservative, but if there's no gold standard of meaning, then what does the word even mean anymore?

It means nothing because post-modernism says the words mean whatever you want them to mean, because there is no TRUTH.

Why apathy toward the 2026 midterms could lead to effects that you will regret

This is what I was talking about previously. I ran into this kind of apathy and frankly, it is really, really hard to deal with. Somehow, we've got to get this turned around, or we are in a lot of trouble here. I jipped the Bongino show to get to this point that he makes, which is right on target. If the Democrats win in 2026, a lot of really bad stuff is going to happen. So, here we go:

Bongino show, ep. 2594:

Election "bomb" in Germany

Wait a minute! Didn't the UK do a thing called "Brexit"? What the heck is going on over there???

Talarico Pastor: ‘People in This Church’ Wish Would-Be Trump Assassin ‘Had Been More Successful’

Talarico is a fake. He's as fake as fake can be. It isn't any Chrisitan church to say that they're agnostic or atheistic. What kind of people would say that? What kind of pastor would say that? Certainly not any Christian one.

Incidentally, he promotes murder for what exactly? Differences of opinion? These Talafreakos claim to be caring people, but they advocate cold-blooded murder. Talarico is a liar and a fake. That is true of all commies. The whole idea is to defraud on the road to power. They are insane.



Update:

Get a load of this!

Gotta love it...

Bongino is right

He says the black-pillers and the doomers are a problem.

I've just seen that for myself. There is a real problem here because they are these folks who keep saying things like "nothing is happening" and so forth.

Trump has an impressive list of good things that have happened during his watch. But the black-pillers and doomers focus on maybe one or two things that haven't gotten done as evidence that "nothing is going on".

Well, one or two things don't sway the balance against at least 25 things that HAVE been done.

Nor does it even begin to balance off what the commies will do if they get back into office. Every one of these black-pillers and doomers ought to be quizzed about what their preferences truly are. Do you prefer that the commies get into office and rig the elections to favor themselves FOREVER into power? Because that is what is in their plans... How do we know that? Because of what James Carville said. He said "don't run on it, just do it".( in reference to new liberal states in the Union and end of the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court) Then he added, "let them eat our dust".

So letting them win will guarantee that you cannot ever oppose them again. Is that what you truly want????

Regardless of what you want, that is exactly what you'll get.

Instead of that black pill, you need to take that red pill and see the reality. Unless you are truly a commie in disguise, the red pill will be what you need to make the right decision and vote against the commies. You don't have to vote for the GOP. The GOP ain't perfect, and don't I know it! Don't have to disregard the warts, but the warts gives you a choice, whereas the commies Won't!

Anybody who knows anything at all about how the commies operate KNOW I'M RIGHT.

And so is Bongino.

By the way, if you have any doubts about what Carville said, I asked AI and got this answer: Question:

Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?

Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?

Yes, James Carville has explicitly advocated for all three measures. In a November 2025 interview on Fox News, he stated he would "carve out" the filibuster for judicial nominations and statehood votes to implement his plans. He reiterated in April 2026 that if Democrats win the presidency and both chambers of Congress in 2028, they should **unilaterally grant statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico** and **expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices** on day one. Carville advised Democrats to keep these plans quiet during campaigns, saying, "Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it."